Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended last night, I was addressing the Committee on the conduct of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Sea Point with regard to allegations which, as I have said, were totally unfounded; allegations to the effect that the Government does not wish to allow sufficient time for the discussion of the draft legislation on the Select Committee. It is quite clear that a certain pattern is developing here, a pattern which has nothing to do with the substance of the legislation on the constitutional changes contained in the Bill in question.

It is quite clear that those hon. members are trying to foment a campaign by alleging that they the Government is not allowing sufficient time for the discussion of the proposals. In the light of the spirit in which this is being done, it is very clear that we can expect obstructions from hon. members of the Opposition as far as the handling of this Bill is concerned. [Interjections.] Of course, this is not a new phenomenon which we are witnessing on that side of the House. After all, conduct of this kind is typical of the conduct of hon. members of the official Opposition with regard to every constitutional proposal which has been discussed in this House and on the Select Committee up to now. In this particular case, of course, I believe that there is an explanation for the behaviour of the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. This is that they are afraid that the legislation will be finalized so that a referendum can be held on it. [Interjections.] Do you see what I mean, Mr. Chairman? Instead of proving in their arguments …

But it has to rain before we can hold a referendum.

Yes, if it rains, at least you will get wet (“nat”), for a change, and civilized as well, perhaps. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that those hon. members know that there is increasing support for the concept of reform in this country. Those hon. members know, in the first place, that among politicians themselves, and among businessmen and business organizations, there is support for the principle and for the concept of reform. This is evident, after all, from the statement made by the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, from the standpoint of Assocom, and from the standpoint of the FCI.

†Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I am of course not suggesting for one moment that the said bodies support the proposals in detail. They are prepared, however, to support the concept of constitutional reform, and that is the most important aspect of it all.

But everybody supports the concept of constitutional reform. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, they are supporting the constitutional proposals because in essence, in terms of their perception, those proposals represent progress, and are therefore worthy of support. I want to make it clear that no matter what our views might be of the contents of the proposals for reform, nobody can dispute the fact that in terms of those proposals—though they might be inadequate in terms of the perceptions of hon. members opposite—they represent real progress in respect of participation in Parliament by other groups that have never yet been represented in this Parliament.

*For that reason, Mr. Chairman, hon. members of the Opposition must not pay lip service to the concept of constitutional reform while trying, by a variety of dubious methods, to arrest or slow down that process, or even to obstruct it, as those hon. members are in fact doing. But what is even more important, Mr. Chairman, is the following question, which I want to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in all fairness. What grounds did he have for talking to the Sunday Times? I also ask the hon. member for Sea Point what grounds he had for warning the Government not to steamroller this legislation through. Surely the fact remains that the Select Committee, of which that hon. member is also a member, has not fixed any final dates for its sittings.

How long was it from the publication of the Bill to the taking of the Second Reading? [Interjections.]

Order!

Surely the hon. member for Sea Point knows that no final dates have been fixed for the sittings of the Select Committee. He also knows that as a member of that Select Committee, he has the right to go and state his standpoint there. However, he does not have the moral courage to go and do it there. That is why he has to go and participate in the extra-parliamentary process … [Interjections.] Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what he did.

Like the Broederbond. The Broederbond also forms part of the extra-parliamentary process, does it not? [Interjections.]

What are the facts, however? It is a simple fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Sea Point have made statements in the Press concerning the programme and procedure of the Select Committee. In fact, I want to submit—and I am putting this directly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—that they had no justification whatsoever for doing this. All he did was to take up the refrain which the hon. member for Sea Point had started. It is quite clear why this happened, of course. There is a conflict within the PFP, after all. Surely that explains the matter.

And you are the one-man conflict in the NP. [Interjections.]

I submit that those hon. members conducted a debate in the Press while the PFP had not participated in the discussion of the programme of the Select Committee itself. In the second place, they did this although the Select Committee had not taken any decision as to whether or not it was going to hear evidence. They did this while the question of whether verbal or written evidence was going to be heard had not been discussed on the Committee. If this is true—and these are statements of fact—what right does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have—and in fact he admitted this last night—to create the impression that we want to steamroller this legislation through Parliament without giving proper consideration to it? [Interjections.]

Why do you not simply say that you are not going to steamroller it through? [Interjections.]

Order!

Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who by virtue of his position should be the leader of an alternative Government, allow himself to be exploited to the point where he makes statements in public which have no factual basis at all, and which must create the impression that the Government wishes to take a new constitution—and I agree with him that it is a serious piece of legislation—through the various stages in this House without proper consultation and without providing proper opportunity for comment and for the formulation of standpoints? This is the way in which the hon. leader and his party have always participated in constitutional processes.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition devoted his speech to the methods and processes of constitutional reform. No matter what he says, however—and I shall come to that—whenever there is an opportunity to make a constructive contribution to this process and the thinking associated with it, they throw a temper tantrum like a lot of naughty children. [Interjections.] Let us see whether this is a factual statement or not. The pattern is only too familiar and it is a tragic one. They boycott or they participate … [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon. members to afford the hon. the Minister the opportunity of replying to the questions which have been put to him.

They boycott or they participate, and in public they want to ridicule everything in which they have participated and the forums in which they have participated.

I want to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: There have been opportunities for him to participate in the investigations with regard to constitutional reform as it affects the Coloured people. The Theron Commission was appointed in 1973, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech that it had been a socio-economic investigation. This is not factually correct, of course. [Interjections.] No, Sir. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it was a socio-economic investigation, but that they ended up by giving political or constitutional advice. One of the terms of reference of the Theron Commission was in fact to investigate the progress or lack of it and the impediments with regard to political and constitutional matters. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that it was a socio-economic investigation and that it merely happened to give advice and make recommendations about political matters in 1978.

Why do you not keep to the facts?

These are the facts. I have the hon. leader’s speech with me.

Does it contain the words “merely happened to”?

Let me read it to the hon. leader. He said it was a socio-economic investigation.

Mainly.

It does not contain the word “mainly”.

But I said it was primarily a socio-economic investigation.

No. The hon. leader did not say that. In any event, he can read his speech for himself. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used to be an authority in his field and I want to ask him whether he believed that the composition of that commission was such that it could make an authoritative finding on economic, educational, political and social matters. Was it able to do that? Does he think the composition of that commission was such that it was able to make a scientific finding in accordance with its terms of reference?

Yes, in respect of certain matters.

Very well. I am glad he said “yes”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party profess to be the great exponents of reform. Did he or his party give any evidence whatsoever before that commission? Did he?

What is the logical connection?

The hon. leader asks: “What is the logical connection?” The hon. leader accuses us of not creating opportunities for consultation with regard to the extremely important subject of reform. I asked him whether he gave evidence before a commission which, as he himself says, had a basis on which it was able to make a finding, and he responded by asking me: “What is the logical connection?” [Interjections.]

Arising from the report of that commission, a Cabinet Committee was appointed which was to investigate the political aspects. Hon. members must remember that the hon. leader says we did not consult him. He accuses me of not having consulted him on these proposals. I want to ask him again: Did he or his party take the trouble to give evidence before that committee or to state its standpoint? The answer is “no”. However, he accuses this side of the Committee of not creating opportunities or forums or institutions where we can consult political parties. There was a Select Committee which had to give consideration to the Bill in which the 1977 proposals were embodied. It will be remembered that Bill was not even read a First Time. In fact, the question of a constitution was referred to the Select Committee. The hon. member and his party participated in the deliberations of the Select Committee. The NRP gave evidence before that Select Committee, which was later converted into a commission. The NP’s constitutional proposals as contained in the 1979 Bill were submitted to that Select Committee and formed part of the evidence.

Were they discussed at that stage?

I am coming to that; the hon. leader must just give me a chance.

The point I want to make is that the NRP gave evidence, while the Government submitted a Bill, but nothing was received from the PFP.

That is untrue. What I am holding here in my hand was there.

By whom was it submitted to the Select Committee? [Interjections.]

Order!

It remains untrue.

Order! The hon. member for Green Point must contain himself.

Then the hon. member and his colleagues who had served on the Select Committee decided—he cannot get away from this—that the commission into which the Select Committee had been converted should be dissolved and relieved of its task. He signed a reason explaining why this should be done. He said that the President’s Council was better qualified than the commission to consult over a wide front, to collect information and to deliberate. The President’s Council, it was found, was better qualified to do so than the commission or any Parliamentary institution. He also decided, together with the rest of us, that the evidence which had been taken up to that stage should be referred to the President’s Council because the President’s Council was better qualified than he and other members of the Select Committee to advise on the constitution.

That is a high school debating point.

No, it is a practical political debating point. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us examine the hon. member’s statement. I think he has experience of high school debates. [Interjections.] I may take it that when the hon. member decided with us that the President’s Council was better qualified, by virtue of its composition and mode of operation, he either meant what he said or he did not.

No, he was simply taking part in a school debate.

Yes, perhaps he was simply taking part in a school debate, or otherwise I must accept that he did not mean what he had decided. He can tell us what he did mean.

What happened then was that after we had reached consensus as a Select Committee, he instructed his party that the President’s Council should be boycotted. On the instructions of the hon. member, the PFP was barred from participating in the instrument of which he had said that it could do a better job than he himself and other parliamentary institutions. So they boycotted the President’s Council. In spite of the fact that he had agreed with the recommendation, he did not give evidence before the President’s Council, he did not give evidence before the instrument which he himself had considered better qualified to advise us.

I submit that the statements made in this particular connection by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Sea Point, apart from the malicious attitude which they reveal…

You are starting that business again, are you?

Yes, I am repeating it. Apart from the malicious attitude which these statements reveal, they clearly prove that they do not want to participate in the process of reform. To conduct a constructive debate about reform, even in this House, in such an atmosphere and with members who are behaving in this way is becoming increasingly difficult. However, there are reasons for this, and I shall come to them.

I want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Although he did not agree with the President’s Council, if its deliberations had resulted in an improvement of the constitutional position of all the population groups involved, would he have rejected the result because he did not agree with the method? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can give us an indication.

You should not talk to people who display a malicious attitude.

He should tell us. He should tell us whether, because he did not agree with the method, he would have rejected the result, even though it brought about an improvement. [Interjections.]

Order!

The fact is that the pattern is very clear. The hon. leader does not wish to conduct a debate in this House. He and his colleagues do not wish to conduct it here; they want to conduct it in other forums outside this House.

Like on television, of which you appear to be frightened.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier, who is not here at the moment, asked me in what way the Cabinet Committee was going to consult on Black affairs. Sir, this sounds strange coming from a speaker on that side of the House. There is a method which we proposed, in terms of which, firstly, there should be a Black council, and, secondly, committees of such a council could negotiate with committees of the President’s Council about the subject concerned. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party opposed this. They accepted the principle that all population groups and peoples should be consulted. We all accepted that. However, because they did not agree with the method of consultation, they not only argued about the method, but rejected the principle of participation as well. If, because we cannot achieve consensus about methods of investigation and consultation, we do not participate in it and reject its results, Sir, we shall not be able to conduct a meaningful discussion in this country.

The method betrayed the principle.

Order!

Let us examine the hon. leader’s own position. I did not receive his blue booklet because members of the Cabinet do not have a box here at Parliament in which it can be deposited. However, let us examine the hon. leader’s position. I want to ask him whether he goes along with the preamble contained in the draft constitution. He is behaving like a little boy now who throws a tantrum when he gets cross. Does the hon. member go along with the preamble and does he believe that the principles contained in it constitute a declaration of intent on our part?

He is not participating any longer. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us examine the methods of the hon. leader and his party. Now he must help me. In the blue book he sent me, he says, in the first place, that when they have come into power, he will arrange a national convention on the basis of non-negotiable principles. What he wants to do at this convention is very interesting. According to his blue booklet, it will consist of leaders of the various political groups. According to the speech he made yesterday, however, these will be the leaders of the various population groups. There is a significant difference between those two methods of composition. There is a significant difference between leaders of political groups and leaders of population groups.

We shall get the NP there and you as well.

However, the hon. leader and his party are also committed to the repeal of certain laws. The hon. member for Houghton said that they would allow the Communist Party to participate as long as it did not subscribe to violence, as though the communists engaged in anything but subversion and violence! In other words, the Communist Party will not be a banned organization. Will it be included, therefore, in terms of the definition of political groups given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? According to the hon. leader’s definition, it would have to be. In the second place, I want to ask him, in the light of the Act relating to banned organizations, whether he is going to invite the ANC to participate in the national convention. The hon. member for Hillbrow said “yes”, but what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He is committed to the repeal of these laws. After all, the PFP is going to repeal the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act as well. All the population groups with a specific identity are also going to be invited. He is going to invite all groups. He is under an obligation to tell us today whether he is still going to invite the Communist Party and the ANC. Last night a certain hon. member became very rebellious because, so he al-ledged, an analogy was being drawn between the PFP and the ANC, which is a banned organization. If the hon. leader says that he is not going to invite them, he must lay down qualifications. Then he must say whom he is going to invite. Is he going to invite the political groups which agree that we should strive for a system of government in which one group will not be dominated by another? Then the hon. leader must also tell us what is meant by the domination of one group by another. In his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about consensus among all the various population groups. Does he really mean all the population groups? If he does, he will not be able to invite some of his own members. Then he will not be able to take the hon. member for Greytown with him, because the hon. member for Greytown has already told us what he stands for. He says that he does not stand for a multiracial society, but for a non-racial society. He does not stand for the concept of multi-nationalism, but for non-nationalism. On that basis we do not expect the hon. member for Greytown to be invited.

The hon. member for Green Point alleges that a tricameral system in which groups participate as groups and in which the majority of each group must agree on matters of common concern is a violation of democracy. According to him it is a crude form of discrimination. According to him it is built-in inferiority. Two things are very clear from this. According to the hon. member for Greytown and the hon. member for Green Point, one man one vote in a unicameral system is the only solution which would meet those requirements. Secondly, because such an approach would inevitably result in group domination, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could not take along the hon. member for Green Point either.

The next question is what plan the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party are going to submit to this convention. The hon. leader has sent me his constitutional plan. The hon. member for Groote Schuur said the other day that this was their domestic constitution. The plan which the hon. leader sent me contains certain principles which he says are non-negotiable. Hon. members of the Opposition repeated this yesterday. However, they have no idea of or proposals for the structures in which those principles should be embodied; the mould in which they should be cast. We have now reached the stage where we have to discuss these things. According to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the only things that are non-negotiable are those principles. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Greytown has already had an opportunity to address the Committee, and he put many questions to the hon. the Minister. I now expect him to listen to what the hon. Minister says.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how they can participate in the debate on the structures contained in the constitutional plan if they do not have the faintest idea of what they themselves want. I submit that it is unreasonable to expect us to assemble structures from their general principles—that is what they want to do. Let me mention an example in this connection. How will they ensure equal economic opportunities for all citizens in the system which they envisage, taking into consideration the economic inequalities in society and the existence of various power groups? Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot deny that such inequalities and such power groups do exist.

There is the need to protect individuals and groups which find themselves in a weaker bargaining position. In fact, this is the case in any country; it is frequently a characteristic of developed communities, and it is associated with the existence of various groups. How is he going to incorporate it into this structure?

I want to repeat a statement which I made during the Second Reading debate on the Constitution Bill. This is that it is impossible to conduct a meaningful debate with the official Opposition about the draft constitution. They have no concrete plan in terms of which they want to or are able to evaluate the draft constitution. In my opinion, therefore, they are performing a nervous egg-dance. This may be good enough for a qualifying round in a talent competition, but it is not good enough for this House. We must debate it in this House.

I come now to the so-called differences between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and us on this side of the House. All the points made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition boil down to the contention that the NP takes decisions unilaterally and that the NP regards the announcement of its decisions as negotiation.

Yes, that is true.

He says it is true. Surely it is competely untrue. Let us examine the facts. In my reply to the Second Reading debate on the Constitution Bill, I advanced facts to refute this. It demonstrates the tragic level of the debate on a new constitutional dispensation when the official Opposition recites its objections to us like a robot without substantiating point by point the statements that are made. The process which has led to these constitutional proposals contained in the Bill began in 1973, and not on a single occasion did that party make any contribution.

The next statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that the PFP believed that there had been no successful negotiations and that no successful results could be achieved if the various political parties had not achieved absolute unanimity on all particulars in all respects and at all times. He said this in his speech. He said that if this did not happen, there had not been proper consultation. What is the reply to this? In this connection I want to concede at once that there is a difference between the approach of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and our approach on this side of the House. It concerns the concept of legitimacy. I think we should clarify this concept. I have given the facts concerning the events which led up to these proposals. It remains a fact that the expectations of the various population groups in this country diverge on so many points that it would be impossible to draft a constitution which would fully satisfy everyone. Legitimacy in such an absolute sense, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition interprets it, will not be possible in future. The PFP does not have the slightest hope of ever achieving this at a convention such as the one it wishes to constitute. Are we to sit back in the meantime and exclude the Coloured people and the Asians from the constitutional processes, or must we hope for divine intervention? I submit that one can take steps in the meantime; one can create structures and one can develop the concept of the legitimacy of a system. I submit that this is what the Government is doing in terms of its constitutional plans. I have said, and I want to repeat it, that South Africa is a developing country. It would be totally unrealistic to think that we could formulate a final constitution for it today. Such an approach could be valid in a homogeneous country which is highly developed, a country such as Sweden or Belgium. There it may be possible for a constitution to exist for decades. But such an approach is irreconcileable with the fact that South Africa is a developing country in every sphere of life and that structures have to be created to serve the country in the various phases of development. If the abolition of the Group Areas Act, or the Population Registration Act, is laid down as a prerequisite, we shall not get anywhere. After all, we have to create forums which will enable us to conduct an ongoing debate. I maintain that the draft constitution is creating such a forum within Parliament and within the executive, and I want to tell hon. members that this is the way the leaders of the other groups understand it. However, the PFP does not understand it, because they are fighting to come into power. They will fight for ever, and the best evidence I have is their own argument, because they say that the draft constitution is an entrenchment of the NP. In other words, they do not claim that they will ever be able to come into power. If this inference is correct, and it must be correct, they will never be able to hold a national convention, and if they cannot even hold a national convention, they will not be able to bargain with anyone about a future constitution for South Africa. I have already indicated that they themselves do not believe that they can, but in spite of that, they say that they are going to organize a convention, from which, if they manage to do so, some of their own members will have to be excluded, because some of their members do not subscribe to the principles which he described as non-negotiable. Then, without any input from them, because they do not know what the thing should look like, they will have to devise a plan. Then they say that the constitution will be legitimized and accepted in this way. Now I ask, in all reasonableness, whether this is a realistic approach. I say it is naive and impracticable and I think they should reconsider their position in this particular connection.

The official Opposition has been guilty of a simplistic and over-simplified view of South African society. As a result of their social philosophy, they have become irrelevant in the political life of this country. They themselves admit this, because they have doomed themselves to remain in opposition for ever. They pay lip service to the concept of multinationalism and the existence of minority groups. They use this concept without defining it, but their social philosophy is exactly the same as 19th century Western philosophy. Try as they may, they cannot get away from the legacy of liberal philosophy with the emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. Because of this liberal philosophy, they do not realize that the crucial problem of South Africa lies in the need to reconcile the conflicting aspirations of widely divergent ethnic groups and divisions. Because of this philosophy they do not realize that we must consistently take the reality of the existence of the various population groups as a point of departure for constitutional development and that these groups must be incorporated into the constitutional dispensation as its constituent elements. Therefore I say that they remain divorced from the reality of the South African situation. The best proof the PFP’s lack of realism is the emphasis which they place on individual civil rights. They want to give civil rights to individuals, instead of realizing that in a complex society such as ours, greater substance should be given to the civil rights of groups. Just like political rights, civil rights in South Africa should be dealt with on a group basis. If this is not done, the rights of everyone, political as well as civil rights, will be in danger. Let us examine his plea for civil rights for all inhabitants of South Africa. We must remember that civil rights is a Western concept and that we can only understand it in that sense. If civil rights had to be given to all South Africans on an individual basis, it could only mean that everyone must immediately enjoy the same political rights and privileges and have an equal claim to government services. Full citizenship for all South Africans means nothing but one man, one vote within a unitary State.

As against this approach to the political and juridical problems of South Africa, there is the approach of the NP, in terms of which population groups should be the constituent elements of the constitutional dispensation. We insist on this because we know that if this does not happen, there will be chaos in South Africa.

I come now to the hon. member for Rissik. This hon. member has a certain record in this House and in politics, and I should like to remind him of it. The hon. member’s record commits him to certain standpoints. I concede that he has every right to change those standpoints, but I do expect him to have the courage to admit it. The hon. member and his colleagues in those benches accepted that White, Brown and Asian would have to inhabit the same country, although each group would live in its own group areas. Furthermore, the hon. member accepted that because these three groups share the same country, they would be entitled to participate in the decision-making processes where these affected their own lives as well as in matters of common concern. The hon. member is committed to the creation of institutions within which every group must take its own decisions. Furthermore, the hon. member is committed to the creation of institutions in which the groups must accept co-responsibility. Surely the hon. member will not deny that he did adopt this standpoint. But, Sir, the hon. member not only adopted this standpoint. He also participated actively in giving effect to it, because he signed his name to indicate that he accepted Coloured people and Asians as South African citizens and that he accepted, furthermore, that there were Black peoples that were also South African citizens. He is on record, under his signature, as having said that in order to devise a constitution for this country, all South African citizens—Whites, Coloureds, Asians, Chinese and Blacks—should be consulted. Not only is he in favour of it; he is even on record as having said how it should happen. He even said how it should happen and the hon. member for Brakpan also said how it should happen. They also signed reports, the substance of which was that the advice in connection with the inquiries into a new constitution for the country should be referred, in the first place, to a President’s Council, which was to have consisted of Whites, Coloureds and Asians, as well as Chinese, and, in the second place, a Black council, which was to have consisted of people from the ranks of the Black peoples. In the third place they committed themselves—and this has been placed on record—to committees of the President’s Council being able to consult with committees of the Black council on the constitution of South Africa. Now, however, the hon. member for Pietersburg comes to light with the newly-discovered truth that as soon as one has institutions for joint consultation, one immediately has joint government.

What about the President’s Council?

I am talking to the hon. member for Rissik.

Yes, but do look at things with both eyes; not only with one eye. [Interjections.]

Order!

In his standpoints in regard to consultation and the advisory institutions the hon. member for Rissik drew a distinction between White, Coloured and Asian on the one hand and Black peoples on the other hand. The hon. member will concede that my argument is reasonable and fair. In regard to the President’s Council the hon. member for Rissik, however, argued in favour of a single council for Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Chinese as a consultative institution. At the same time he referred to another institution for the Black people, and advocated that as well. Consequently there is only one inference a person can draw from such a standpoint. It is that the political path of development of Black peoples differs from and has to differ from the path of development for Whites, Coloureds and Asians.

No, not necessarily.

I shall still come to that. But if that was not the inference, I want to know what explanation we have for it then. Now I want to know from the hon. member for Rissik whether this was always his standpoint. I think it is a fair question which I am now putting to him. Was it always the standpoint of the hon. member for Rissik that Coloureds and Asians should follow the same path of political development as the Black peoples, and that they should receive their own sovereignty within their own geographic areas? Was that always his standpoint? If this has indeed always been his standpoint—it does not seem to me as if the hon. member is going to reply to me—then he was formally a member of a specific political party while in his heart he held to a completely different standpoint.

The hon. leader of the hon. member for Rissik made a speech in Parow, and what did he say there? The hon. member for Lichtenburg said that they did not change their standpoint. However, in a speech in Parow the hon. leader of the CP said—if he was correctly reported—that they had in fact changed their standpoint. He said he had signed in favour of certain areas in which people should have self-determination, and at the same time as well in favour of areas in which common interests would exist. However, he said that he had also signed in favour of the concept of Coloured homelands being politically impractical. Then he asked the following question: “What is immoral and unethical about changing one’s standpoint?” There is nothing immoral or unethical about a change of standpoint, as long as one admits to having done so. [Interjections.] The party of which I am a member, Mr. Chairman, has effected any number of changes in its policy in accordance with the demands of the circumstances of the times in which we are living, and I make no apology for that. A party that cannot change must die. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, there are still two other subjects on which I want to have a few words with the hon. member for Rissik. A relationship existed between the two of us, although we did not always agree. The hon. member will give me that. He was chairman of the study group of a department which I had to administer. Surely the hon. member will admit that I did not on a single occasion ever question a standpoint which he expressed; not a single one of his standpoints. [Interjections.] He had every possible opportunity to do so and he will concede in all fairness that we and those groups had constant discussions on the problems with which we were struggling and with which all of us were struggling.

Let us see what he did. In the first place he referred to an article by Dr. Crocker. What did he say? He said this—

That is what he said. He also said—

I now wish to tell the hon. member that this was not typical of my experience of the hon. member. I do not know what the experience of other hon. members was, but it was not typical of my experience of the hon. member. If one seeks a typical example of the smear tactics by way of innuendo and suggestion which hon. members of the CP and their fellow-travellers are guilty of and in which, it seems, former clergymen in particular gleefully participate, then there is no better example than this. Once again the facts are being distorted and wrested out of context. I say today that it is becoming frustrating, when we ought to be conducting a constructive debate in this Committee, to constantly have to correct the facts for the sake of the record and the general public.

What happened in this specific connection? The hon. member referred to an article by Dr. Crocker—I hope I understood him correctly; if not, he can tell me so—entitled “South Africa: Strategy for Change” which appeared in 1980 in the American publication “Foreign Affairs”, while he was still an academic and before he was appointed to his present post.

There is no doubt that Dr. Crocker is an intelligent person and that he has a sound understanding of some of the realities of South Africa, which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not have and which the hon. member for Rissik does not have either. He is aware of the central role which Afrikaner nationalism plays in our political life and will play in future. I want to state today—and I make no apology for doing so—that because constitutional change, if it is to be constitutional, has to be passed by this Parliament and because the largest number of voters of members of this Parliament are Afrikaners, the Afrikaners have significant role to play in the future of this country and have a greater responsibility than other population groups. I make no apology for saying this. What does Dr. Crocker say? He says—

He goes further. He also states that South Africa—and he says this sympathetically—

Hon. members will understand that Dr. Crocker was quite correct in his judgment, also in respect of the hon. member for Rissik in this specific connection.

Naturally, as an American academic and State official, Dr. Crocker has his own views on South Africa and its future. Everyone in the outside world has his views of what we as a Government should do and what we should not do. Consequently let me state categorically today that, it is not Dr. Crocker, it is not the Americans, it is no other country which determines what the policy of this Government will be in planning and regulating the lives of the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] It is the sovereign, elected Government of South Africa that will determine those matters for our country in its own time, in its own way and according to its perception of what would best serve the interests of the population. Surely Dr. Crocker also acknowledges this, for what does he say in this connection? Listen to this—

Why does the hon. member launch such a disgraceful attack on a member of the Government that is working day and night to keep the enemies of South Africa at bay? Why? Dr. Crocker, too, has no illusions about the essence of our policy, because this is what he says—

Just ask the hon. member for Lichtenburg how enthusiastically he participated in that regard. I read further—

He, at least, got that right; something which the hon. member still does not understand. He then went on to say—

We are not interested in Dr. Crocker on account of his academic views of our domestic affairs—let me say this today in the Parliament of South Africa—but we are interested in him as a USA official charged with African policy which also affects us. The hon. member most certainly believes now that we should ignore this superpower. He most certainly believes, if I understand him correctly, that we should isolate ourselves from the most powerful defender of the Free World against the communists. I want to remind him that his party does not, after all, believe in an onslaught on our country, yet he should go and listen to the reasons why the British Prime Minister is going to fight an election in Britain. She is not surrounded by communist States, as we have such States across our borders, but the hon. member expects us to side against the most powerful champion opposing communist domination of the world.

He reproaches the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information for associating with Dr. Crocker and the USA, and he calls him “Crocker’s pawn”. The Government is interested in Dr. Crocker. The Government is also interested in the USA. Indeed, the Government intends to continue its talks and dialogue with them. Let there be no doubt about that. We are going to do so because we have important strategic objectives, because the USA is prepared to work together with South Africa to halt Soviet expansionism and its influence in Southern Africa, also for the sake of the hon. member and members of the CP, and because the USA is prepared to recognize the fundamental South African security and political interests. The same Dr. Crocker whom the hon. member labelled yesterday as the architect of the downfall of the Whites in South Africa, wrote the following article, which I maintain the hon. member deliberately did not quote, because he only quotes selectively. What did Dr. Crocker say? He said—

That is the Southern African region—

He pleaded with his Government for a demonstration—and this is reliable—against the infiltration into this region of communist influence and power, but that hon. member, who calls himself a patriot, speaks in those terms about that country! Dr. Crocker went on to say—

Nevertheless the hon. member believes that we should turn our backs on that country and its leaders.

I have never met Dr. Crocker in my life, but I want to say that he is one of the few personalities in the world who is today prepared to state a positive message on developments affecting South Africa in public, right or wrong, acceptable or not acceptable. In a recent interview with Elise Pachter of the School of Advanced International Studies of John Hopkins University, which appeared in Winter-Spring 1983, he said—

It takes an outsider to tell our official Opposition that people who say there is no reform have missed the boat. When Dr. Crocker was asked about South Africa’s security measures, he replied—

What was he saying? He was saying that stability was necessary for reform and that in order to ensure stability, one could adopt strong measures. That was not all he said, yet the hon. member rejected this positive approach. He will probably take it amiss of Dr. Crocker for leaping into the breach for South Africa, because that is what he is doing. In the same interview Dr. Crocker stated the following standpoint in respect of South African reprisals against terrorist targets in our neighbouring States—if only we were all so positive about this, if only we were all prepared to express and to commit ourselves to similar sentiments and not to have any part in disclosing or selling the military secrets of our country to other people!—

I have already stated in this House that we shall determine the future constitutional dispensation. We shall deal with the methods and processes because we are governing. There is nothing to stop the hon. the Leader of the Opposition trying to apply his methods, but we cannot afford to be isolated from the international community, particularly not from the Government of the leader of the Western World, in the international struggle against communism. Particularly so after the present American Administration has made it very clear that the USA shares important aims with South Africa and is cooperating.

The hon. member went further to speak about Lijphart. If I understood him correctly, he said that Lijphart had dictated to the President’s Council. It is the declared premise of the Government that in the complex South African situation it is not possible or desirable, in fact it would cause confusion, to commit itself to a specific academic model or theory. I have stated repeatedly that there is no textbook model for South Africa, and the hon. member agreed with me. What should far rather be done instead is that specific techniques and elements from other systems which are applicable to the South African situation ought to be employed. Surely the hon. member knows that the proposals as they are stated in the draft constitution is not Lijphart’s consociational model. If the hon. member does not know this, he ought to establish whether it is or not. There may be some consociational features present in the Government’s guidelines, but in other important respects the guidelines deviate from this model, and the hon. member knows it. Lijphart was not commenting on the guidelines, but on the first report of the President’s Council. According to Rapport and the Sunday Times of 16 May 1982, he said that the proposals entailed a serious deviation from his theory.

There is another American who, for the sake of innuendo, was said to have been dictating to the President’s Council, just as Dr. Crocker was allegedly dictating to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. I am referring here to Prof. Huntington. The hon. member alleged that the Government imported Prof. Huntington from Harvard to South Africa to advise it on the methods of change. What are the facts? The hon. member could have established the facts. In any event the hon. member knew about the facts. Nevertheless, there was an innuendo on his part that the Government had imported Prof. Huntington to advise it, i.e. the Government. That is untrue. Prof. Huntington visited South Africa as the guest of the Constitutional Association of South Africa and the great pleasure which the hon. member derives from the Government’s approach to reform and one of the approaches to reform which Prof. Huntington discussed, is extremely dubious. I have a suspicion that the hon. member was a contributor to the Scheuer pamphlet. In fact, I wonder whether he did not do the research for Rev. Scheuer I have a suspicion that is exactly what happened. Prof. Huntington, in the portions quoted by the hon. member, discussed various approaches to reform, but the hon. member quoted haphazardly, wherever and whenever it suited him. I am no apologist for Prof. Huntington’s philosophy. However, the Government has committed itself to constitutional reform and it wishes to implement this in an evolutionary way, with retention of more effective government. I repeat that academics in the outside world and in South Africa are welcome to analyse the Government’s actions. There is nothing to hide. I want to tell the hon. member that for any person who claims—more than many of us here—to be a scientist who has done research, his actions were extremely dubious and deplorable. If there is one thing we need in our debating, it is that we may oppose one another but that we should, in heaven’s name, adhere to the truth.

The hon. member constructs an effigy by means of innuendo’s which he wants the voters to burn. Where is his academic integrity? I myself opened the congress which Prof. Huntington addressed, and may we be preserved from the inferences which the hon. member draws from that fact. In that speech, in the presence of Prof. Huntington, I stated the Government’s standpoint on reform in respect of, inter alia, internal and external expectations, the political situation, the economic and social realities of our country and the processes which are relevant here. Why did the hon. member not quote that? It was published, as was Prof. Huntington’s speech. I shall tell hon. members why he did not quote it. It did not suit his purpose, for he could not use it to indulge in petty politics.

I, come now to the hon. member for Green Point. That hon. member said that the Coloured leaders would lose credibility among their own people because they were going to have to “scheme” with Nationalists on Standing Committees. That, Sir, reveals a spirit implying that members of committees of Parliament are scheming. That means that members of committees which are struggling with problems which are solved more easily in committees, are scheming. Is the hon. member’s participation on Select or Standing Committees a matter of scheming with the Government? If it is not, why should the cooperation of the Coloured people then be a matter of scheming with the Government?

Because you do not want to give them a decent political say in public.

The hon. member is not even able to understand it. The political say of the Coloured people in their own House is going to be far greater than that of the hon. member for Green Point himself. In their own House they are going to serve in the Government. According to the hon. member’s own admission, however, he is going to remain permanently in the Opposition.

They cannot move without your permission.

The hon. member said an important thing. He said Coloured participation was inferior participation. However, the real secret is emerging here. This reflects once again the philosophy which some of those hon. members wish to camouflage. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville as well to listen to this, because he will understand it. What was the hon. member for Green Point saying? He said that if the Coloureds were unanimous in their House and the Indians were unanimous in theirs, and if, in addition, they have 49% of the White votes, they would still not be able to adopt resolutions. What was the hon. member in effect telling us? He wanted them to have representation in the same House so that they could adopt resolutions. That is what he was saying. No other conclusion can be arrived at. [Interjections.] There we have it now. I was waiting for it, and there we have it. I inferred that the hon. member for Green Point did not agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition believes that one group may not dominate another group. The hon. member for Green Point, however, wants to use groups to dominate other groups. [Interjections.] That is interesting.

The theme of the hon. member for Green Point was that the new system amounts to in-built inferiority for Coloureds and Indians. According to him it is a crude form of racial discrimination. According to him the existence and recognition of groups is race discrimination and a violation of democracy, simply because groups will participate separately in the system. We must note that while some hon. members of the official Opposition are arguing that we have to recognize the existence of groups in that we must ensure a non-negotiable principle that one group may not be dominated by another group, the hon. member for Green Point says that it is violation of democracy when people are given representation on a group basis. The hon. member need only go and read his own speech. [Interjections.] With these remarks the hon. member illustrated the unworldly naïvity of the PFP. Nothing which does not amount to “one man, one vote” is good enough. That is a fact. Hon. members can go and read his speech ten times over. Minority groups as such must be protected against so-called domination by others, but we may not recognize the existence of groups. Now I want to ask: How on earth does one protect one group of people against domination by another if you may not recognize the existence of the groups? Any recognition of the existence of groups is gross discrimination and nothing else. Self-determination, he said—these are his words—is a farce. He has never heard about it. The will of the elected majority regardless of the groups to which they belong, must be decisive in the legislative process. Then the hon. member made the following statement: Coloured and Indian leaders who participated in the system would destroy their credibility with their voters. He went on to say: The Coloured voter remains in a position of powerlessness and can be manipulated. The committee system does not give power to the powerless; it will amount to scheming behind closed doors. I have already dealt with that.

I come now to the hon. member for Pietersburg.

You should have run in the Comrades Marathon the way you go on.

Yes, and I shall succeed while you will lose all the time.

*During the Second Reading debate hon. members replied effectively, I think, to the national ideal (“volksideaal”) and the national state ideal (“volkstaatideaal”) of the CP. The hon. member for Pietersburg, however, repeated the national state concept (“volkstaatkonsep”) in undisguised terms today. He drew back into his shell, all the way to 1942 in fact, and quoted a draft constitution of the NP for a completely different era and for a completely different set of circumstances. To what purpose? To make the statement once again that the Afrikaners allegedly had an aversion to foreigners. The “foreigners” which were identified in 1942, were not Coloureds nor were they Asians. The “foreigners” to whom he said the Afrikaner had an aversion, were White.

I spoke about foreign domination.

No. Foreign domination is imposed by foreigners. Must I explain this as well? That is what the hon. member said.

Did you not also support that view in your student days?

No, what I supported, I still support today. I still say today that no other country may dominate this country.

[Inaudible.]

All that hon. members must forgive me for is for having been at the same university with that hon. member. I apologize for that.

Order! The hon. member Mr. Theunissen must contain himself.

From this side of the House I wish to state categorically that it is a distortion of the national character of the Afrikaners, a caricature of the Afrikaners of which I am tired. The Afrikaners do not adopt, by virtue of the preservation of their identity, an unfavourable and repudiatory attitude towards other people. The Afrikaners wish to live in peace with all the other peoples and population groups in the country. The Afrikaners grant them what they grant themselves. They wish to co-operate with them to the advantage of everyone; in a way which will benefit all of us.

The hon. member for Pietersburg quoted with approval and concurrence a definition of “citizen”.

In the constitution of 1942.

Yes, and he quoted it approvingly. I ascertained what “citizen” included. It included only the White person. Now I ask him: How does he reconcile his definition of citizenship—which includes only the White people—with the document which the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Brakpan signed, in which they said that the Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Chinese serving in the President’s Council should be South African citizens? How does he reconcile that?

Within the policy of the NP as it then was.

Now he says that we have changed and kicked him out of the party on the basis of our policy.

You first changed your policy and then kicked him out.

The hon. member for Brakpan must not become angry at me because of what he signed. All I want to know from the hon. member for Pietersburg is how he reconciles his standpoint with the standpoint which the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Rissik signed. They will probably have to hold a caucus first. We may receive a reply later. Sir, there is an attitude in that party of superiority to all other people. They think all other people will be satisfied if they are governing. But they will be astonished to find out how many Coloured people will not want to come anywhere near them.

I come now to the hon. member for Koedoespoort.

Sir, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Let me first finish what I am saying. I come now, as I have said, to the hon. member for Koedoespoort. He is a theologian, but see what he did! He said I spoke by implication about Christian reconciliation among all people. What I said was that reconciliation was not a discovery of the World Council of Churches and was not only to be found in the constitutional matters of our country or among countries of the world. Reconciliation is to be found in the Christian message. That is what I said. Of course Christian reconcilliation is not possible among non-Christians. I want to ask the hon. member, and I want him to listen carefully to what I am going to ask him now: It is possible to have people who do not adhere to Christian convictions in the same Government? [Interjections.] Of course. Then what is the value of his argument? Sir, I shall say what his standpoint means. It means that he will share representation with non-Christians, as long as they are Whites. The hon. member will share representation with athiests, as long as they are Whites; he will share representation with Muslims as long as they are Whites; he will share representations with agnostics as long as they are Whites. And then they are angry with me when I say that they are a bunch of theological racists.

Give me a half-hour as well, then I shall state my standpoint too. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Innesdal and the hon. member for Johannesburg West apologized for not being able to be here this afternoon. I want to thank them very sincerely for their constructive contributions. One of the problems we have is that we must always refer to the negative and do not always have a chance to thank those hon. members who made a positive contribution properly.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister remarked to the hon. member for Rissik that they had never differed on standpoint when the hon. member was still chairman of the Internal Affairs Study Group.

Order! The hon. member cannot make a speech now, or is he simply putting a long question?

What I should like to know from the hon. the Minister is on what occasion the principles of that legislation was discussed in that study group and a decision was reached?

It was discussed at a time when I was not dealing with the legislation yet. But they objected to the philosophy behind the proposals.

Mr. Chairman, in the 10 minutes available to me I can deal only with certain aspects of the speech of the hon. the Minister. At the outset let me say that I want to isolate the hon. the Minister from the officials of his department, because given the circumstances, it is quite clear that the officials of his department have done an almost impossible job with a great degree of dedication.

Sir, we have listened to the hon. the Minister again at length today. Once again his speech was riddled with illogical arguments and was notable for certain glaring untruths.

Such as?

I will deal with them. Today’s performance by the hon. the Minister has proved that whatever his other talents may be, he is temperamentally totally unsuited to leading this country in the process of constitutional reform. Sir, if the healthy process of constitutional development and reform which started long before the NP thought of it, if that goes on the rocks in South Africa it will be because of the performance of the hon. the Minister.

I want to deal straight away with certain glaring untruths in his speech. He said that the PFP in its boycott mood did not give evidence before the Theron Commission. Sir, that is an untruth, and the hon. the Minister should know it. I have here with me the report of the Erika Theron Commission and in the list of people who and institutions which gave evidence before the commission, the name of the Progressive Federal Party appears last on the list of political parties and groups. What is more, the PFP was the only party represented in this House that gave evidence before that commission. Therefore the hon. the Minister owes the PFP and the public an apology. As the responsible Minister he had access to this information. Yet he stands up here and accuses the PFP of not having given evidence before the commission.

Secondly he said we did not give evidence before the so-called Schlebusch Commission. The hon. the Minister was at that time a member of that commission. Therefore he should have known that this party did in fact give evidence. I have in front of me a document entitled: “Konstitusionele aanbevelings van die Progressiewe Federate Party vir voorlegging aan die Gesamentlike Komitee vir ’n nuwe grondwet vir die Republiek van Suid-Afrika”. As leader of the PFP at that time I wrote to the chairman of the joint committee as follows—

PFP for consideration by members of your committee. Representatives of the party will be available to give verbal evidence in support of this memorandum should your commission so wish.

As I have said, the hon. the Minister was a member of that commission at the time. He sat on that commission as the leading member of the Government side. For him now to come to this House and to say deliberately that the PFP did not give evidence, is, I believe, an absolute disgrace. Then the hon. Minister still has the effrontery to say about hon. members in this House: “In Godsnaam, kom ons bly by die waarheid!” Sir, I hope this afternoon the hon. the Minister is going to make another apology.

Let me come to the illogicalities in his arguments this afternoon. He attacked the hon. member for Green Point, saying that if we are all in one House it must lead to domination of one group over the other. To the extent the hon. the Minister is correct, let me ask him how he is going to prevent the domination of one group over the other in a multiracial President’s Council? It must be remembered that the President’s Council is going to take the final decision on all matters that are not resolved by the other three Houses. I want to say to him that by attacking the logic of the hon. member for Green Point he has exposed the illogicality of the Government’s proposals in this regard.

As part of his illogical tirade against the Opposition, the hon. the Minister asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: “Stem jy saam met die Aanhef tot die grondwet?” Mr. Chairman, there is a fundamental difference in this regard. We believe that the constitution is important but the hon. the Minister seems to think that it is a toy of the NP. We believe that the preamble is almost a sacred declaration of intent. I want to say that if this is a sacred statement then the policy of the NP is blasphemy. I maintain that one cannot say “To respect and to protect the human dignity and the rights and liberties of all in our midst” and then in the very document in which one says this, one excludes 70% of the people from their rights. One cannot say “To uphold the independence of the judiciary” and then give the President powers to operate the constitution beyond the control of the judiciary. One cannot possibly say “To further private initiative and effective competition” when the Statute Book is riddled with legislation relating to physical planning, group areas and urban areas, which deny the Black and Coloured South African the ordinary rights of free competition in the property market in South Africa.

As I pointed out, untruths and gross illogicalities were the keynote of the speech made by the hon. the Minister this afternoon. The hon. the Minister’s speech this afternoon once again indicated his arrogant attitude towards constitution-making. It also reflected once again his arrogant attitude in trying to bulldoze a new constitution for South Africa through and onto all the people of South Africa. We in the PFP have a fundamentally different approach to constitution-making and we make no apologies for it. We believe that a constitution sets out the ground rules by which all the people are going to be governed and that whoever is initiating that constitution has to go out of his way at least to try to reach consensus and agreement that is as broad as possible. This constitution not only recasts the structure of this House but it also includes a number of new entrenched clauses. We must bear in mind that once those clauses have been entrenched it is going to be very, very difficult to change them. A vast range of clauses dealing with the composition of Parliament and of the electoral college to elect the head of the executive, the definition of what are own and general matters, the powers of the President to intervene in the constitutional process and his rights to dissolve Parliament are all matters that are going to be entrenched in the constitution. Once they are entrenched there it is going to be very, very difficult to change them. We believe that at least in respect of these matters that are to be entrenched an effort has to be made to try to consider them soberly and to try to obtain some measure of consensus among all parties in this House. One cannot entrench clauses and then find that these entrenched clauses were the whim or the brainchild of a single Minister. More than anything else entrenched clauses are a sacred part of the constitution of a nation. We charge the hon. the Minister with trying to bulldoze this whole measure through against some theoretical timetable that he and his Prime Minister have dreamt up.

I want to come back now to one or two of the other allegations that were made against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and myself in respect of the allegation of bulldozing. It did not start when the Select Committee was given a selection of dates the other day by the hon. the Minister on which he said that it was going to meet. It started before that. When the Bill was first made public on 5 May, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition warned the Government against the concept of bulldozing it through. When I spoke on behalf of the official Opposition when the Bill was introduced, I made a key point of saying that this was a constitution and no attempts should be made to bulldoze it through. So seriously did the official Opposition feel about this that the hon. Chief Whip twice wrote to the then Leader of the House, firstly about the date for the Second Reading debate, the 16th, just 10 days after the Bill had been made public, and this period included two weekends, a by-election and a religious public holiday. We asked for a postponement. We then asked for an extension of time. We said that two hours and 30 odd minutes were not enough for the whole of the official Opposition to take part in the debate on so important a matter. Once again we received sympathetic letters from the then hon. Leader of the House. What did he say? I quote—

Mr. Chairman, we believe that ample opportunity and time means, inter alia, that the public must be enabled to give evidence. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I want to react to one aspect raised by the hon. member. I had some inquiries made about the giving of evidence, and my information in this connection was that no evidence of that nature was given. But I am quite prepared to accept the word of the hon. member that it was in fact given, and to apologize to him for having made an erroneous statement.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point treated us, in sanctimonious indignation, to a tirade against the hon. the Minister. He also admonished the hon. the Minister because he supposedly had the temerity to refer to “the truth”. I am now accusing the hon. member for Sea Point of having violated the truth. The hon. member for Sea Point did so by repeating the allegation that this hon. Minister was trying to steamroller the new constitution through the Select Committee.

Through Parliament, I said.

Very well, through Parliament then. However, we dealt with the Second Reading of the Constitution Bill, after which the measure was referred to a Select Committee, on which the hon. member for Sea Point is serving, as I and other hon. members are. The hon. member for Sea Point also referred again to the matter of the sitting dates of the Select Committee, and I want to put it to him specifically that those dates were never at any stage put to the Select Committee as meaning the end of the deliberation. It was stated quite specifically that these would be preliminary dates, and that further dates would be suggested to the Committee at a more opportune time. Neither the hon. member for Sea Point nor other hon. members of his party serving on that Select Committee raised any objection whatsoever to the proposed dates.

What did the hon. the Prime Minister say? He said that we would remain in session here until we had dealt with it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, there was no indication from those hon. members that they felt that the work of the Select Committee was being disposed of overhastily. Nevertheless the hon. member for Sea Point groundlessly repeated the old allegation that this hon. Minister was responsible for this measure being steamrollered through Parliament. When the hon. member refers to this Parliament, the activities of the relevant Select Committee form a very important and a very specific part of the attention that this Parliament has to give to the relevant measure. I therefore accuse the hon. member of dishing up a flagrant untruth to this House this afternoon in so far as he tried to imply that this hon. Minister was supposedly responsible for the relevant measure being steamrollered through Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, I also accuse the hon. member for Sea Point of reproaching the hon. the Minister for ostensibly being illogical—the hon. member used the word “illogicalities”—while he himself was trying to raise an extremely illogical argument. The hon. member wanted to know how we were going to prevent domination of one group by another in the President’s Council. He asked that question in consequence of the hon. the Minister’s argument regarding domination in a joint council such as this House of Assembly. Surely the hon. member knows—or he should know, as a member of the Select Committee on the Constitution—that the entire style in the new dispensation will be different to that in the present dispensation. The hon. member, as a member of that Select Committee, also knows that his own behaviour and his entire approach on that Select Committee was different to what it is here this afternoon for example. After all, the hon. member knows that when he is not playing to the gallery it is a horse of a different colour.

One sometimes despairs of the future of South Africa when one listens to the contributions made in this House from the benches of the official Opposition, because not a single positive word comes from those benches; all we get there is playing to the public Press. That is what we find in those benches. Hon. members of the official Opposition are not interested in making a positive contribution; they show no sense of responsibility and it is the height of cynicism we hear time and again from those benches when we are trying to debate matters of essential interest to South Africa and its people across the floor of this House. They then play up to the public Press.

After all, the hon. member knows that things will be different in the President’s Council and there is therefore every reason to accept that we will not have this sort of approach there as a completely different spirit will prevail there and that the members of the President’s Council will deal with the matters referred to it in a calm and responsible way. That is why his argument that because we would have one group dominating another if this House had to be multiracial, the same will apply in the President’s Council, does not hold water. It does not hold good at all that the same will apply in the President’s Council.

Because the hon. member therefore had the temerity to accuse the hon. the Minister of arguing illogically, I accuse him in turn of a lack of logic in his argument.

I wanted to deal with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s seven point programme of principles. One wonders what became of the remaining seven principles of the former member for Johannesburg North, because at an earlier stage there were 14 principles and now there are seven.

They are not principles; they are concerned with methods. When will you grow up?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself referred to them as the seven fundamental principles of his party.

Differences.

No, he first laid down seven fundamental principles and then he said there are seven differences. I am now referring to the seven principles.

As far as those seven principles are concerned, they contain many things which are obvious and which everyone in this House probably subscribes to. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then went on to list seven differences between his party and this side of the House. Inter alia, it would seem that one major difference between us is the method of negotiation. It became quite clear from his exposition of the PFP’s perception of negotiation that they proceed on the assumption that the Whites have no future in this country if it is not granted to him as a favour by the non-Whites.

Nonsense.

No, it is not nonsense; this is obvious from the seven differences he specified in the course of his speech. Unfortunately I do not have the time at my disposal to demonstrate this to him point by point. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the standpoint of this side of the House is that the Whites have vested right in this country and therefore need not negotiate with any non-White nation or national group in this country to ensure them of a future in this country. He wants to negotiate with the other nations and national groups to bring about a fair dispensation here. The question of the Whites’ vested right in this country is not part of that negotiation process. This is the basic, cardinal difference between us and the hon. members opposite. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition still wants to negotiate on the right of the presence of Whites in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to state for purposes of the record that the hon. the Minister has explained to us on this side of the House the circumstances in which there was an error in regard to the question of whether the PFP gave evidence before the commission on the constitution, the so-called Schlebush Commission. I want to say that from our side we accept his explanation without qualification.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay did not say very much to which I need react. He will have to forgive me for saying that. He stated repeatedly that in the proposed new dispensation there would inter alia be a change in debating style. I just want to consider this briefly. I found it astounding that a senior member on the Government side could say that in debates in this House people were led by motives other than the motive of stating a case. He said they played mainly for the gallery. If this is the case, I want to ask the hon. member if there is any reason to suppose that in a future Coloured Chamber or in an Indian Chamber for representatives of those population groups will not also play to the gallery. It seems to me as if he is admitting this. What this “wonderful” change in style will be like therefore remains an open question.

I was referring to the President’s Council.

Already in the previous debate and again in this debate the CP has repeatedly been accused of denying both the Coloureds and the Indians their citizenship of South Africa. This accusation came from the Government side. I do not know how they came by the argument that we on this side want to deny the Coloureds their citizenship of South Africa. What is interesting is that the NP has been repeatedly asked by the official Opposition with reference to the policy of the NP—I hope they still have it—of creating independent Black national States, whether the NP still adheres to the standpoint of a Dr. Connie Mulder that if the NP’s policy with regard to the Black peoples is carried through to its logical consequences, there will no longer be any Black citizens of South Africa. Apparently the NP no longer wants to reply, but we should like a reply to this question. I should like a reply from the hon. the Minister in this connection.

I shall give you one.

After all, it has never been argued that because the standpoint of the NP in the past was that the respective Black peoples should be led to independence in their own fatherlands, the NP by adopting that standpoint was denying or disregarding the present citizenship of South Africa of members of the respective Black peoples in South Africa. After all, that argument was never advanced. Why is that argument therefore being raised now? Because the CP says that in the same way that a logical policy was followed in connection with each separate Black people, this should also be drawn through to the Coloureds and the Indians, the argument is now being raised that we are denying the Coloureds and the Indians their civil rights in South Africa. But this is not true and never was true. Another argument being used against us is that we are advocates—I do not know which member of the CP ever said this—of an exclusive Afrikaner State which we want to establish, and in which we shall deny our fellow-Whites of other population groups their civil rights. This is absolute rubbish to say the least.

I listened attentively to the hon. member for Pretoria Central’s argument which he raised during the discussion of the Constitution Bill. In clause 2 of the present Bill it is provided in the Afrikaans version that the people of South Africa “erken die oppergesag en leiding van die Almagtige God”! Who are those people? Are they only the Afrikaners?

What does the English text state?

I know there is a difference between the English text and the Afrikaans text, but I am now referring to the Afrikaans text. Can people to which reference is made in the present constitution, refer to anyone else but the White people of South Africa? The hon. member for Randburg pointed out to me that there was a difference between the Afrikaans text and the English text. If one compares the two sections, one cannot arrive at any other conclusion but that it refers to the White people of South Africa. I do not think anyone will disagree with me that our present constitution has been drawn up basically to make provision for the political rights of the Whites only. In the present constitution provision is not made for Coloureds, Indians and Blacks.

One aspect I should like to debate with the hon. the Minister is his statement this afternoon that in the same way that a country has to develop, a constitution also has to develop. The hon. the Minister said that the proposed new constitution was not perfect, and that it would also have to develop and be adopted and altered. Because the NP has admitted in advance that we are not dealing with a perfect instrument here, why has it made provision in the new constitution for it to be virtually impossible to change the basic principles contained in it?

Let us consider the position in a practical way. Today the White man finds himself in the position of a guardian. I should like to use the image of a guardian. The White guardian—this is what the NP is now doing—is going to the Coloureds over whom it has guardianship and is telling them that he wants to enter into a contract with them, but that the Whites will draw up the contract. That contract will provide that after the Coloureds have become emancipated and that contract comes into force, they will not be able to withdraw from that contract without the consent of the Whites. That, in effect, is what the NP is now going to do. The Coloured leaders—I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would bring one of them to me with whom he has negotiated if I am wrong in this respect—have said in advance that these new proposals are not acceptable to them. They are prepared to participate in the system with the express objective of changing it. However, the NP has told them in advance that they will not be able to do so unless they have the consent of their present guardian. I therefore want to make an appeal for us in debates on this matter to have done with our sham piousness, to stop accusing other people of dubious motives and to stop accusing people of telling untruths while we ourselves are not always sure that we are telling the truth. Let us debate matters like responsible people in the interests of the future of our country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Barberton wove his speech around the accusation from this side of the House that they, the CP were striving for an exclusive Afrikaner people’s state (“volkstaat”) and that they wanted to deprive people of their civil rights. I wish to try and enter into a debate with the hon. member and other hon. members of his party, in all honesty, so as to examine their philosophy—or rather their ideology—as regards constitutional development.

Hon. members would concede that Dr. A. P. Treurnicht is undoubtedly the principal ideologist of that party’s policy. His whole ideology of constitutional…

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to refer to the hon. member for Waterberg in that way?

The hon. member for Randburg may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon. member for Randburg referred to the hon. member for Waterberg as “Dr. A. P. Treurnicht”. Is that permissible?

The hon. member for Randburg may proceed.

I am not trying to slight the hon. member’s leader. Whatever the case may be, the hon. member for Waterberg is undoubtedly the principal ideologist of that party’s idea of constitutional development. He bases his whole ideology on the doctrine of group-specific sovereignty, which he borrowed from Kuyper, who originally developed it in 1880 in an inaugural speech at the Free University of Amsterdam when he wanted to establish the principle that the university should be free of interference from both the State and the Church. Kuyper went on to develop this philosophy. Dooyeweerd also toyed with the idea. However, this all took place in a Holland with a relatively homogeneous background at that time. The hon. member for Waterberg—with the permission of hon. members I shall refer to him as “Dr. A. P. Treurnicht”, in view of the writings he has published—went further and distorted Kuyper, took his theory and applied it to a heterogeneous South African society.

I should like to refer in this regard to a few references to support this. On page 19 of Op die Keper Dr. Treurnicht says—

He says that the norm is this same unique character one has and that one should pursue it at all costs.

W. A. de Klerk discusses this standpoint in The Puritans of Africa. He compares the law Dr. Treurnicht postulates with the law of nature …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I wish to object once again to the way in which the hon. member is referring to the hon. member for Waterberg.

I wish to point out to the hon. member for Brakpan that the hon. member for Randburg is quoting from what the hon. member for Waterberg has written under the name “Dr. A. P. Treurnicht”. The hon. is not speaking disparagingly of the hon. member for Waterberg.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: The fact is that when one hon. member refers to another hon. member, whether or not he is the author of a book, he is referring to him as an hon. member of this House. You yourself gave that ruling on a previous occasion. I am therefore simply asking you to apply that ruling in this case as well.

The hon. member for Brakpan completely misunderstood me. When I gave that ruling at that time, the hon. member for Lichtenburg had referred to hon. members sitting in this House. He had referred to them as “you”. The hon. member for Randburg, however, is quoting from the writings of the hon. Dr. A. P. Treurnicht. The hon. member for Randburg may continue to do so.

Bill de Klerk deals with this matter in The Puritans of Africa and compares it with God’s law of gravity—a law of nature—and says that this law of life could be equated with it. Therefore, if one should try to ignore the law of gravity and step out of the 21st floor of a building, one would fall to one’s death.

By implication, if one should defy this law of life, one would come to a sticky end at some stage. Further on, on page 79 of Op die Keper, the following standpoint is stated with referenece to the Gospel—

When Prof. Degenaar, in Standpunte No. 130, admonishes the author as regards this standpoint of his, he piously states—

He then also refers to Acts 17 verse 26. The people (volk) therefore becomes the norm.

Last but not least, I just want to refer to page 16 of Credo van ’n Afrikaner, in which the author says the following—

What is he, in fact, doing here? I can think of no better person to quote than Dr. Ferdinand Deist, who states in his book Sê God so?—

The hon. member for Waterberg, still in his work Credo van ’n Afrikaner, in his third point on page 14, extends the argument of the inequality of people, to peoples, when he refers to the employees who are supposedly not entitled to the privileges associated with being a child of God. However, it is not the first time that this ideology has made its appearance in the world. Parallel to this, of course, is the philosopher Zoroaster, who developed the same ideology in ancient times a philosophy which was adhered to by Darius, and which ultimately led to his defeat by the Greeks at the Hellespont. Nietzsche’s Superman idea was also distorted by other lesser philosophers of his time, for example, Lagarde, Langbehn and Van den Broek. Adolf Hitler, too, seized on this idea and came forward with the idea of a super-German people within the framework of the Aryan race. When I refer to things that appear to be parallels, I want to point to them, in all honesty as warning signals. The hon. member for Brakpan has just referred to the Afrikaner and the White “volk”, as he puts it. The speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg last night was full of references to the Afrikaner “volk” within the White context. The interjection by the hon. member for Koedoespoort earlier this afternoon points to the acceptance of that on the same basis.

A second warning signal I wish to point to, is the following. I quote in this regard from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, as follows—

Then he also refers to the Hitler Jugend, the youth movement, and says that this youth movement—

I ask whether this does not sound familiar. Does this not correspond with statements like “we will not take it”, or with statements that it would only be possible to change the constitution, if it should be passed as it stands, by way of revolution, since we are never going to reach consensus? Does this not also correspond with a desperate clinging to the AWB, which also preaches a militant attitude? [Interjections.]

The third warning signal I wish to point to briefly, is the idea of inferiority which is making its appearance and which also comes to the fore in National Socialism, and which, in fact, based on the superiority of peoples, formed the basis of National Socialism. A final warning signal I wish to point to, is the style of propaganda. The National Socialists were originally the National Socialist German Labour Party, with the financially powerful as the opposite pole. Yesterday the whole argument of the hon. member for Rissik was devoted to linking the financially powerful to internationalism, the Illuminati—by implication international Jewry.

The second idea as far as propaganda is concerned, is the play with the whole idea of the superior numbers of the so-called inferiors. This is linked to the questions which have been asked here as to whether, if it were to change, we would change the composition of the electoral college, and so on. There are two lessons I want us to learn from this and remember. The myth, the ideology, of the people’s state (“volk-staat”) is self-destructive. Ultimately the people’s state also disappears. The second is that these standpoints are not adopted deliberately. Their logical consequences, i.e. what necessarily has to happen, are not stated. However, attitudes develop, attitudes whereby the people call for action, and whereby those who develop this ideology are no longer capable of restraining the people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before returning to the Vote under discussion, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I took note of his discourtesy in that in an hour and a half he did not answer one question which I had asked him.

I will be coming to that when I speak about the constitution.

Thank you. I accept that. I dealt with aspects of the department, such as its organization, etc., and issues dealing with constitutional development. I think I should make it clear, in case the hon. the Minister is upset because we opposed his measure yesterday …

No, I am not.

Well, let me just put our view very clearly by stating that the attitude of this party always has been and remains that we evaluate what we do and say in this House on the merits of the issue before us. In the same way that we supported the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill as being a step forward and as being progress towards an objective, we opposed the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Bill because we are opposed to its provisions. We are not a rubber stamp. We deal with everything on its merits and we approach constitutional matters with the object of making a positive contribution to the debate, as I believe should have been the purpose of all hon. members in this debate, yesterday and today. We should all be making positive inputs, inputs that can make a contribution towards solving the real problems that face South Africa instead of debating what I believe are very often philosophic and non-relevant issues not relevant to the real problem of how the races in South Africa are going to work together, co-operate and decide together on the common future of this country.

I want to add one specific example to my query about over-organization and overlap yesterday. We have had—as is reported in the annual report of the department—a population growth analysis that has been carried out by the hon. the Minister’s department. The President’s Council has been engaged and has issued a report on the exact same subject. I believe this is a clear overlap of functions and there are other examples of matters that the hon. the Minister’s department is dealing with and matters that the President’s Council is dealing with or has dealt with. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister is to tell this House exactly what the relationship is between his department and the President’s Council, the functions of both.

I also want to expand very briefly on another issue I raised yesterday, and to relate it specifically to the hon. the Minister’s department in the light of an interjection he made about his functions and those of his department in relation to consultation with Blacks. The hon. the Minister said by way of interjection that we ought to know that his department deals with Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Yet the hon. the Minister himself is the chairman of the Cabinet Committee dealing with Blacks. His department devotes paragraph after paragraph of its report to the question of Black accommodation in the constitutional situation. It deals specifically with homeland Blacks in national States, with Blacks outside the independent and national States—in other words, the non-homeland Blacks—and also with those living in the independent States. All three of these form part of the functions of this department. Here too I think we need clarity in respect of just where the responsibility lies. The hon. the Minister cannot evade it by saying that it is the responsibility of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. This is a function of this hon. Minister’s department and we are entitled to debate it here in this Committee.

The hon. the Minister himself referred specifically to the Council for Black South Africans. I think this was in replying to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want once again to bring this issue pertinently to the attention of this Committee and the hon. the Minister. I want to say quite frankly—and I know many of the Black leaders personally—that I think a very sad mistake was made by the Black leaders of South Africa when they rejected the Council for Black South Africans. In the first instance, the name itself has a tremendous significance because it indicates an acceptance of the reality of the permanence of Blacks who will remain South African citizens. If this were not so, this Parliament would not have approved of the establishment of a Council for Black South Africans. It did so because it believed that there were Blacks who would remain South African citizens. The very designation of the council placed a stamp of permanence upon Black South Africans, and I believe that is the first reason why it should have been accepted.

The second reason why I believe it is a pity that it was rejected by the Black leaders is that Black council with its link with the President’s Council could have played a positive and real part in the negotiating process in a co-ordinated and inter-linked mechanism. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this aspect should not be overlooked and thrust aside but should rather be pursued and incorporated into the mechanics of consultation.

I said that I wanted to discuss what I believe to be a vital feature in constitutional planning, and I refer here to the role of taxation. The draft constitution does not specifically exclude or provide for taxation by the Houses for the individual groups. This party believes that the right to tax one’s own group is a fundamental element of self-determination because if a group has that power and discovers as a group that its share of the general cake is not sufficient to maintain the standards that the group has set itself and the members of that group are prepared to pay the difference, a levy is not adequate as a mechanism to fill that gap. The right of a group to tax its own people through its own group authority as an “own” affair is an element that guarantees a power base for self determination and a real protection against domination. If a group has its own fund-raising source, its own fiscal sources for raising money, it then has a guarantee that it cannot summarily be steamrollered by other groups.

There is another major reason why this is important which I believe must be considered very carefully. This is not original. My colleague, Mr. Sutton, on the President’s Council has raised it before. I am talking about a limitation in respect of personal and company tax. In order to ensure that socialism cannot milk the private enterprise cow to the extent that the creation of capital is impeded and we drift more and more towards a socialistic State in South Africa this element must be considered. If there is a limit, say 50%, on individual and company tax, and groups have the right to impose individual taxation on its group members it will ensure the building up of private capital reserves and capital investment in the interests of the whole State and not just of one group. However, if one does not have that protection then one may find that the pressures of the demand for finance from the lower income groups, from the have-nots of South Africa, become greater and greater. The pressure is there for more money to be paid out of the central pool and eventually one finds that one has to take something away from the other groups in order to satisfy those demands. If individual groups want to spend more than their share over and above their reasonable allocation—let us call it the jam on top—they should be allowed to raise it themselves. But then the claim on the resources of private enterprise should be limited in regard to the extent to which they can be milked. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the hon. member for Durban Point that when he commenced his speech, it seemed to me as if he was becoming a little sensitive now, since he thought that no one was paying any attention to him any more.

We are not a rubber stamp of the NP.

That is obvious. We have never said that the NRP is a rubber stamp. The NRP is the second biggest party in Natal, whereas the NP is the biggest party in Natal.

The hon. member for Randburg has just pointed out to me that there were two further points he would have liked to have made when time caught up with him. I should like to make them on his behalf. He spoke about the psychosis that was developing. He has given me certain newspaper cuttings, one of which is a quotation from Die Burger. It concerns what a certain Pieter de Beer, a White who shot at Blacks and appeared in court had to say—

Another case that was referred to, was an interview conducted by Die Vaderland with members of the public in the Soutpansberg constituency. Someone who said he was a CP supporter …

He is a bartender.

Yes, he is a bartender.

… said—this is the attitude, the psychosis that is being created—

This is the kind of language that is being exploited. Hon. members of the CP will recall that when the Liberal Party still existed, we accused them of having become the meeting place of communists, which was no longer legal in this country. It now appears that the CP has also become the meeting place of people who adopt this kind of standpoint. I want to tell them …

Just look at yourself.

… if they wish to retain an image of decency, they must refrain from being a meeting place for this kind of attitude. [Interjections.]

You advocated a Coloured homeland.

You advocated national socialism.

That is absolute nonsense.

That is a lie, and you know it.

Order! The hon. member for Umhlatuzana must withdraw that allegation.

Sir, I withdraw it.

I should like to turn the debate to another section of the hon. the Minister’s department. I should like to refer to the Planning Division. Since planning is an extremely important task in the economic development of our country, I should like to point out that the Kleu Report indicates that there are five primary objectives in the South African economic policy. The first is economic growth; the second, a socially acceptable distribution of income, i.e. a division that will be socially acceptable to all communities in South Africa; the third is an acceptable distribution of economic activities; the fourth is the improvement of the community’s social welfare—and we all agree that we should continue to strive for an improvement in the social welfare of all—and the fifth is a satisfactory degree of independence from external economic and political pressure. Let the hon. members of the CP take note that it is the economic standpoint in South Africa that there should be a degree of independence from external economic and political influences.

We must take into account that it is not only in the economic sphere that we must find solutions. We must find solutions for the whole picture, i.e. in the social, economic and political spheres as well. Then we must take into account our decentralization policy that more than 50% of the present total Black population is under the age of 15 years. This means that irrespective of the possible success of any population policy as regards family planning, half of the present Black population will reach the age group 15 to 30 during the next 15 years, and will therefore become part of the economically active group. Furthermore, we should take into account that at present, 35% of Blacks are urbanized, and that it is expected that over the next 20 years, approximately 70% will become urbanized. These people seek employment opportunities. They want housing, they want transport facilities. They will need telephones, electricity, furniture, etc. Unless a massive development campaign is launched, these things will only be available in the homelands to a limited extent. An urban building programme should be launched in which the Blacks themselves can take a greater initiative in building houses and becoming involved in the generation of the development economy. In order to do this, employment opportunities, productivity, industry, trade and services are needed. For this we need private investment, and more than ever we need private investment from abroad.

If we look at the present situation as far as the metropolitan areas are concerned, we must guard against the same over-concentration taking place there as has already taken place in the large cities of the world. We must take into account that it is becoming increasingly expensive to provide the infrastructure in areas such as Soweto, and that the industries that want to be where the market is, are really subsidized to a large extent by the State’s contribution to provision of that infrastructure. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go into this in detail, but it is therefore essential that we give increasing attention to the decentralization of industries.

Since I represent that area in Parliament, I should like to refer to the Tugela Basin development area. During the present drought, which has been the worst in 200 years, the Spioenskop and Wagendrift dams have been more than 80% full throughout. There has been no water shortage as regards industrial development and agricultural development in that area, a shortage that could have had an inhibiting effect on the level of production of that area. Furthermore, I wish to point out that the cheapest method of creating employment opportunities is to develop agriculture, and irrigation farming in particular. Therefore, since the water is available for the development of industries and agriculture in the Tugela Basin development area, in my opinion it is desirable that industrialists and agriculturalists take note of the need to give this their attention. Of the incentives the Government has decided on, practically the best incentives are available in the Ladysmith/Ezakheni area, Region 37 of Region E of the industrial development plan. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I actually feel that I should offer you an apology in that I intend to talk about constitutions. I have listened to the debate for some time now and I have listened to many speakers—I do not refer to the hon. member who has just sat down, who I think tried to keep his observations to an aspect of the Vote—but I have heard very little that is relevant to the Vote. I think the aim of this particular Vote is to accomplish constitutional development in this country. Please accept my apologies if I talk about that.

When we deal with new constitutions, I think the ordinary person asks himself three things: Firstly, how a new constitution will affect his ordinary life; secondly, how it will affect his economic position and prospects in the community; and, thirdly, how it will affect his freedom as an individual. In the light of these three tests I would like to debate the following issues. Firstly, the position of the court as the protector of the individual and the individual’s civil and economic rights. Secondly, the role of a bill of rights in the constitution, structured as a safeguard against the abuse of power. Thirdly, the conventions of constitutional and parliamentary practice as a mechanism to ensure democratic procedures. Fourthly, where under a new constitution the power to raise taxes and appropriate revenue really rests, and what accountability for the spending of such money will exist. You will appreciate, Sir, that in the short time available to me I will have to be very brief.

Under a democratic system of Government, the individual should look upon the law not as a means to oppress or to regulate him, but as a set of rules designed to act as a safeguard for him against the inroads of others upon his legitimate rights and in terms of which the individual regards the courts not with fear but as a guardian to which he can turn when his freedom is threatened and when his economic and property rights are in jeopardy. History shows that the individual has not only required protection against his fellow-citizens but many also require it against his rulers who may oppress him, either physically or economically, and who may seek to exact unauthorized taxes and deprive him unjustly of his rights to life and liberty, freedom of expression, the right to work and much more.

In these circumstances, when one considers any new constitution, in whatever country in whatever circumstances, I think due regard must be had to the fact as to whether one actually needs a rigid constitution, whether there is a need for an entrenched bill of rights and whether there is a role for the courts to play in the protection of the individual’s rights under that constitution. Whatever can be said about the United States and its constitution—I for one see a lot of merit in it and I am an admirer of it—the reality is that the constitution and the supreme court offer the individual in the United States, which is a society of many ethnic groups, of many religions and of many nationalities, a safeguard which ensures the stability of that nation. I would therefore like to suggest that when we consider any constitution, we should take steps to strengthen the role of the courts to achieve the purpose of a protector of the individual and of the constitution. We should entrench the provisions for the liberty of the citizen in the form of a bill of rights. Constitutions and parliaments do not only work on written rules, they also work on understandings and conventions. The hon. the Minister interjected to point that out the other day. All the talk about the Westminster system being unsuitable for South Africa, may be relevant to the question of majoritarian Government, but it is not accepted that it is relevant to the conventions and practices of Parliament which have been built up over centuries and which have enabled democratic principles to prevail in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. If one looks at our own constitutional proposals which are now before the Select Committee, one sees that clause 7(5) refers to the constitutional conventions which existed immediately before the commencement of the Act—that they are to continue except in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. These provisions appear in a clause which relates to the powers of the President. The interpretation of those provisions may well be that they only relate to the conventions pertaining to the President and not to the conventions pertaining to the executive and Parliament as a whole. If that is so, I think we need to look at the position very carefully.

Cannot we discuss that more effectively in the Committee Stage?

Yes, but I think it is important that we should know that there are conventions which go beyond the President. These need to be entrenched. There are very important conventions in this House in regard to a number of matters which we cannot leave aside and allow to be subjected to possible misinterpretation by somebody who is in office. This is important because we are not making a constitution for today only. One has to deal with a constitution for tomorrow, and one has to deal with it irrespective of the incumbent who holds a particular office. This is one of the traps into which I think we may be falling here.

The proviso is something which also worries me because it reads—

The reality is that the Bill contains many provisions which dramatically change existing conventions. By implication it could be argued that they have in fact now fallen away. If we look at the role of the courts as set out in the draft constitution, we see that those courts have very limited jurisdiction on constitutional matters. In fact, it is particularly prescribed to be so. Let me give an example. The election of the Speaker by an electoral college as opposed to the whole House is to my mind quite inconsistent with the conventions of Parliament. The appointment of an Acting Speaker by a President is utterly inconsistent with the conventions of Parliament, because the Speaker speaks for the whole House and is the guardian of the rights of all members of the House. This is something which to my mind goes completely against parliamentary tradition. This is our House and our tradition. That is what Parliament is about.

We also have other novelties in it. When a particular House does not pass a revenue or appropriation measure, it is not regarded as a vote of no confidence in the person who introduced it but the House itself can be dissolved. This is completely contrary to the conventions of Parliament. It really cannot be accepted. If there is going to be more than one chamber—whatever the merits of that argument—Parliament means the whole institution. It does not mean the President acting on the advice of the President’s Council, which is in fact elected by the majority parties of the Houses and nominated by the President himself and one House. It cannot happen that way. That is not in accordance with the traditions of Parliament. I speak here more as a parliamentarian than as a party politician. As a parliamentarian one must not only have concern for the inroads into long established parliamentary powers but one must also have consideration for the whole concept of what Parliament is about.

Let us take financial control and look at the financial position in so far as this measure is concerned. The whole concept of Parliament has been that one has achieved liberty and freedom in this kind of institution as a result of being able to control finances as against the executive. The whole history shows that Parliament has sought to attain for itself the right to tax and the right to appropriate in order to get the democratic powers which in fact it has obtained. That is the whole history of England. Now we have a situation where that is no longer the case. It is not the whole House that operates. It is not the Commons in the true sense, which we are the successors to. I have quoted before and I want to quote it again, that Lord Gladstone pointed out in respect of the English Parliament in regard to the House of Commons that the finances of the country were ultimately associated with the liberties of the country. He pointed out that it was a powerful leverage by means of which the liberty of the English had been gradually acquired, He said—

We would do well in 1983 in South Africa to remember those words because our liberty is also at issue if Parliament loses control over finance, taxation and the appropriation of money.

Mr. Chairman, South Africa cannot afford to attempt to solve our constitutional problems in isolation from the corporate planning of a coherent development strategy for the region as a whole. For this one must give credit to the P. W. Botha Government. Ever since the Carlton and Good Hope Conferences this Government has proved its total commitment to decentralization and deconcentration. As South Africa is not an exception to the rule of a worldwide phenomenon, of large-scale development in a few metropolitan areas and a far lesser degree of development in the rural areas, it demands serious action from any government. What is important is that this Government was the first to acknowledge the fact that progress was lacking in its efforts to distribute economic activity more equally over the rest of South Africa. Decentralization and deconcentration revolve basically around three basic principles, firstly, equal distribution of economic development and wealth; secondly, taking the jobs to the people; and thirdly, alleviating the pressure for services in metropolitan areas. Thus, new efforts have been put into operation by this Government for continued but controlled development of existing metropolitan areas, for identifying fewer but more fertile industrial deconcentration points adjacent to existing metropolitan areas in order to lessen the pressure and, looking towards regional development, especially in regard to labour intensive industry, to take the jobs to the people.

Contrary to the African pattern, the TBVC countries in Southern Africa have actively involved themselves in this effort of the South African Government. The development towards a confederation of States in Southern Africa has become an indisputable fact. The establishment of the Development Bank at the Pretoria Summit between the Republic of South Africa and the TBVC countries has again given concrete content to this philosophy of the Government. It proves the sincerity of this Government. I should like to congratulate the Government and in particular this hon. Minister on the establishment of South Africa’s first development bank. As a member representing Johannesburg, I should like to say that it is a great honour for us that the city of Johannesburg is going to house this important new bank. We welcome it and hope that it will take its rightful place among the other large banking institutions in South Africa.

Furthermore, Government incentives have proved to be successful. Private enterprise and entrepreneurs are making full use of the opportunities that have been created by the Government. Why? They are doing so because the incentives have been worthwhile. If one looks at the rail rebates, the training grants, the rental and interest subsidies, the housing subsidies, the relocation allowances, employment incentives, the price preference on tenders and electricity subsidies, they all prove the sincerity of the Government’s efforts to make a success of redistributing wealth in South Africa. Metropolitan areas such as the PWV complex, the Cape Peninsula, Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage and Durban-/Pinetown remain of the utmost importance for South Africa.

The Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging area, but in particular Johannesburg, as the undisputed hub of the South African economy, will for many years to come remain the generator of progress and prosperity in this country, and it will continue to play a key role in the development of the whole of South Africa. It has a lot to offer. It produces 53% of the gross geographic product in South Africa, 7% of the national agricultural production, 30% of the mining production, 51% of the secondary industry production, and it is also responsible for more than half the gross national production in the manufacturing sector. Mr. Chairman, 49% of trade in South Africa, 35% of transport, 53% of finance, and 54% of other services are to be found in the PWV complex of South Africa. However, if one looks at these figures, one must also issue a word of serious warning. Johannesburg and the immediately surrounding PWV complex cannot be allowed to choke in its own expansion. The lack of water supply alone—to give but one example—can stifle the future progress of the entire South Africa if Johannesburg should suffer serious water shortages, and I think the hon. member for Klip River, in referring to the Tugela Basin, has proved the point I am trying to make now.

Looking at Johannesburg alone, it is fantastic to note that the Carlton Centre alone consumes more current than the entire municipality of Kimberley. It costs in excess of R1 million a day to run the city of Johannesburg. Its motorways stretch more than 30 km, and it has cost the city more than R85 million to build. Merely 27 000 vehicles enter the central business district of Johannesburg in only 45 minutes between 07h30 and 08hl5, which is the early morning peak period. Over the entire two-hour peak period in the morning 65 000 vehicles enter the central city of Johannesburg.

To replace its 2 628 km of motorways, streets and roads will cost upwards of R400 million, not even to mention the 4 560 km of sidewalks. The total number of motor vehicles in Johannesburg has increased from 331 000 in 1971 to almost 500 000 in 1981. Projections have it that the population of the PWV complex will increase from the present 5 million people to 8,6 million in the next two decades.

Mr. Chairman, I quote these figures in order to stress the importance of alleviating the pressure on the Johannesburg and PWV complex. Strategically it can be disastrous for South Africa if unlimited and uncontrolled development in that region should be allowed. Where there is development job opportunities are being created and people are being attracted. Transport, water supplies and housing, particularly land, become an absolutely impossible problem to solve. What we need in South Africa is decentralization and also deconcentration. It is a wonderful achievement that the Republic of South Africa, Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, have committed them all to peace and political stability in this region. It has committed itself to monetary stability, to furthering the aims and interests of private enterprise, and to ensuring the mobility of labour, capital and entrepreneurship. It has also committed itself to giving assurances again and again that we are against the nationalization of industries generally.

Southern Africa has a great future, and this gives credit to the present P. W. Botha Government in South Africa. If we look around us—to Mozambique, for instance, and also Zimbabwe, Angola and Lesotho—all we see is economic disaster, chaos and deterioration. In contrast, in South Africa, we see the clearest examples of stability, progress, prosperity and security. Economic and industrial decentralization form the basis for the planning towards a confederation of the States of Southern Africa. Politically this region has chosen the road of peaceful evolution. It must now be backed up by a determined effort to redistribute economic growth and economic development in the entire region. The commitment of this Government to using its full financial resources to the absolute maximum will in the end prove the salvation of this country and will lead us to lasting peace and prosperity. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I greatly regret that I feel obliged to refer to the conduct of the hon. member for Klip River earlier on. I want to tell the hon. member that I never expected such behaviour from him, but having said that, I also want to say that I have the same respect for him as I had in the past. However, I think it is a pity that the hon. member referred to this side of the Committee as if we were the meeting place for people who indulge in foul language and meanness. I am sorry to have to say this today—I should have liked to have refrained from doing so—but we should not use this kind of argument against one another. I could tell hon. members about Nationalists who say the most dreadful things about top leaders in the NP today. However, I am not going to typify and classify those few Nationalists who say these unpleasant things as the typical Nationalists. Generally speaking, Nationalists do not behave like those people; they are the exceptions. For that reason I want to tell the hon. member for Klip River that I regret that he saw fit to make those remarks today.

The Government has a problem, and that is that due to arrogance the Government and the NP have drifted away from their supporters and have become isolated. The hon. the Minister whose Vote is under discussion now, could tell us about the reception he had a few nights ago on the East Rand. Several Ministers who addressed election meetings in the Bergs would be able to tell us that they could not risk moving a motion of confidence at any of the meetings, since they would not have been given a motion of confidence. [Interjections.]

To conclude this argument, I wish to refer to what the hon. member for Caledon said last week during the discussion of the Agriculture Vote. That hon. member is also someone for whom I have a high regard, and I am sorry that he used those words in respect of the South African farmer at the end of his speech. According to his unrevised Hansard, the hon. member said—

I am sorry that the hon. member said that about the South African farmer, the farmer who is pulling South Africa through under difficult circumstances. That is what it says here in the hon. member’s unrevised Hansard. [Interjections.]

I now come back to the Vote under discussion. I want to do two things. Firstly, I want to put a few questions, which I think are reasonable questions, to the hon. the Minister and, secondly, since we have been speaking idiomatically about a number of matters recently, I wish to conclude by discussing one of them, and that is that we are conducting consensus politics, consensus dialogue, the politics of understanding. I wish to conclude my speech with that, and I also want to address a few words of gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his department.

My first question to the hon. the Minister concerns the referendum that has been announced and with regard to which further announcements were made at a later stage. The public at large are speculating about this referendum. I put this question to the hon. the Minister with the greatest piety as far as the drought is concerned: Is a referendum in a time of drought a greater expense and a greater task financially, materially, psychologically and physically than would be the case under normal circumstances? If this is the case, I should like to know what the reasons are.

Is it not true that one has only three groups involved in a referendum or an election?. Firstly, there are the officials, the people who do the hard work behind the scenes over a long period of time. They oil the wheels and keep them turning. I refer to the voters’ rolls and cards and so on. Do they have a bigger and more comprehensive task at a time of drought than in normal times. The second group of people comprises the voluntary workers of the parties, the workers of the NP, the PFP, the CP, the NRP and the HNP, that group of willing workers who offer their services free of charge. Are their services different in conditions of drought? Are the demands made on them, greater than in normal times? I now come to the most important person, and that is the final authority, the voter. Does the drought make any difference, compared with normal circumstances, to his going to cast his vote? Does he have to drive further; is it a bigger effort for him? Why is the drought given as reason for not announcing the date of the referendum?

I now come to the thanks I wish to express. I should like to convey a word of thank to the hon. the Minister and his department. I exceeded by far the leave of absence I am entitled to in Parliament because I was enjoying the elections in the “Bergs” so much. I had an excellent guide in the “Bergs”. I did the minimum of talking; the hon. the Minister’s department did the talking for me, and here is the pamphlet. It was my task to visit Nationalists and those in doubt. I visited many old gentlemen who were Nationalists. An old dyed-in-the-wood Nationalist is not easily shifted. This afternoon I want to say in all honesty that I was to change even their minds, but I allowed the Government to speak. The old gentleman would say to me: But my son, the Government would never appoint a person of colour as a Minister, and I would reply: But, Sir, it is not I who says that; it is the Government. Thereupon I would haul out the booklet. If he did not have his glasses with him, I would lend him mine and then he would read: “Printed by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning”. It was therefore the Government’s publication. I would tell him to read question 9—

Question 12—

Question 13—

Then, with some surprise, the old man would read the reply; that Whites will at least have a Chamber, too.

Having read that, he would be beginning to hesitate, but then I would go further and show him question 23—

The old man would then come a little closer to the CP. I would then show him question 30—

Once he had read that, the old man said—I am not going to mention the name of the MP to whom he referred: “Two days ago a National Party MP from the East Rand was here …”

A former MP.

The old man said: When I asked him whether a Coloured could become a Minister, he said—this is the reply of a National Party MP…

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, my time has almost expired. This is what the National Party MP said to the old man: Sir, I guarantee that for the next five or ten years there will be no danger of that. He gave two replies: Firstly, that it would happen, and secondly, that it would be a danger. [Interjections.]

Order!

Recently a great deal has been said about Afrikaners and about White South Africans. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

Order! The hon. member for Meyerton has already said that he does not wish to permit any questions. The hon. member for Meyerton may proceed.

Sir, I said that during the past few days a great deal had been said in this House about Afrikaners and about White South Africans. Both are essential. The Afrikaner has dominated the political scene in South Africa for many years. The White South African, among whom I include mainly the English-speaking people and Jews, are dominant in the economic sphere. The one is as essential as the other. We as Afrikaners want to say that we welcome all White South Africans as members and supporters of the CP. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Meyerton must please excuse me if I do not react to his speech. What he chiefly did was to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister, and I am sure the hon. Minister will reply to him. I should like to turn my attention to the hon. member for Sunnyside who is, on the CP side, the chief guru in the economic and financial field. The hon. member for Sunnyside is a great student. I am therefore sure he knows the CP’s programme of principles very well. One of those principles is a very important one. I think it attests to an extremely important spirit prevalent in the CP. If the hon. member has the programme with him, let him have a look at it. I am referring to paragraph 7.1(a) on page 9 which involves the CP’s economic and financial policy. I quote—

Please note, Mr. Chairman, that this is accepted as a point of departure—

That is an important point, but what follows is even more important—

That is very important. [Interjections.] This afternoon there was again continuous reference, on the part of the CP, to people’s states. This means—and other hon. members on this side have already referred to this—that the people’s state that is eventually to exist for the Whites, will be an Afrikaner people’s state. We accept that would be the case. It would be an Afrikaner authoritarian state.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

I am busy talking to the hon. member for Sunnyside. If the leader of the CP drives along to the polling-booths, accompanied by the leader of the AWB, in order to ascertain the election results, we know exactly where they are heading. The point is merely that the leader of the AWB has the courage to say he stands for an authoritarian state.

There is only one way in which the Coloured dreamland, which the CP one day wants to establish in the north-western Cape or elsewhere in South Africa, can be made economically viable. The way in which this must be done, is reflected in the general economic policy, i.e. that economic considerations form—

The economic order must be used in order to make the Coloured dreamland in the north-western Cape possible. This means it could only be done in one way, i.e. by way of a centrally controlled economy in which industries would be nationalized on a large-scale and forced to move to the Coloured dreamland. That is the only way in which those objectives of the CP could be achieved. What the CP’s approach comes down to is a failure on their part to appreciate the economic realities and the functioning of a free economy. Their aims can only be met in one way, and that is if their economic planning were to be done on this basis.

The NP Government decided that the approach in South Africa should be one of decentralization in the economic field. Several hon. members have referred to this. Approximately 50 deconcentration and industrial development points have been identified in South Africa. These localities receive development incentives. We all know that not all 50 of them will eventually be able to develop into large metropoles or places of great economic activity. Only those people in the deconcentration points who really proceed from the standpoint that the potential of the relevant areas should be marketed as far as the industrialists and businessmen of South Africa and countries abroad are concerned, will succeed in having their areas properly developed.

I also want to correct another misapprehension. It is one to which the hon. member for Walmer repeatedly feels he must refer, i.e. that in his opinion the NP is purposefully—the hon. member must tell me if I am wrong—bent on doing injury to the metropolitan areas as we know them in South Africa today.

Yes.

Nowhere in any document released by the Government is that said to be the objective. In fact, we acknowledge, as the hon. member for Turffontein has said, that for many years to come the PWV area is going to be the generator of economic prosperity in South Africa. The same applies to the other three metropolitan areas. We must however, in good time, prevent those areas from economically strangling themselves as a result of the over-concentration of economic activities, people and all sorts of other things. We must take a lesson from what has happened in other countries. We must start with economic decentralization in good time. The statement that Queenstown is a “remote area” and that we should forget the “remote areas”, is nonsense. That party is not, in any case, going to have an opportunity of ever putting up a candidate in Queenstown. One of our primary objectives is to exploit the full economic development potential of South Africa by way of these decentralization points.

I should like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister. The 50 deconcentration and development growth points that have been identified can only develop if the people in those areas use their own initiative. The Government has already provided the incentives, and each of these deconcentration and industrial development points must decide for itself how it is going to market its area’s potential. They must make large-scale use of private initiative to help the local Government institutions with the professional marketing of their development potential. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the State could not give the relevant areas even more evidence of its desire to be a partner in this venture by making financial provision—even if it is only a small amount of say R50 000 per year—for private bodies in such areas to keep their marketing campaigns going. This would enable these areas to market their potential so that everyone could benefit from it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister displayed a distinct edgyness when he was confronted with his bulldozing tactics in regard to the draft constitution. I should like to ask him a few questions in this regard across the floor, because if he is not guilty of bulldozing the Bill through, I should like to know why he did not even consider referring the Bill to a Select Committee before its Second Reading. I should like to know why the hon. the Minister used his majority to bludgeon through all the principles of the Bill leaving only the details to be discussed in the Select Committee. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister quite pertinently whether he is prepared to agree that representative groups and/or persons be allowed to give evidence to the Select Committee? I should like him to give an answer to that. Seeing he says nothing I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister is prepared …

I am writing down your questions. I will answer them later.

The hon. the Minister could have given the answer immediately. [Interjections.] The final question I should like to ask in this regard is whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to amend in any material way the unreasonable projected schedule of sittings of the Select Committee. Sir, I want to tell you that the projected schedule is unreasonable in the extreme. It has been changed to a small extent after it was sent to us, but it reads as follows: Monday, 6 June, 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.; Tuesday, 7 June, 3 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.; Wednesday, 8 June, 2.45 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10.30 pm.; Thursday, 9 June, 9 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.; Friday, 10 June, 10.45 a.m. to 12.45 p.m.; Monday, 13 June, 8.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 5 p.m.; Tuesday, 14 June, 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.; Wednesday, 15 June, 2.45 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.; and Thursday, 16 June, 8.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. If that is not unreasonable, I do not know what is, because this House will be sitting concurrently with the Select Committee. Hon. members serving on the Select Committee will therefore have to continue with their normal duties of Parliament as well as cope with the work of the Select Committee. [Interjections.] Until the hon. the Minister answers the questions which I have put to him, he cannot escape the charge that he is trying to bulldoze this legislation through Parliament.

I should like to refer to the report of the department for a moment. It is a skillfully drawn-up document and adequately covers the activities of the past year. Paragraph 119, on page 19 states the following—

Although I can easily contest—and I in fact do contest—the total validity of that statement, it is not my intention to speak to the merit of the statement itself. What must be said though is that what I have just quoted is a political statement, a subjective viewpoint. Therein lies my criticism. It is the hon. the Minister, the Government, who are responsible for the political activities of any department, not the Director-General nor any other senior official. So I believe it is quite wrong for a departmental chief in a report he renders to the Minister to restate as his own; NP-held views, views which are constantly used in debates against the Opposition. We do not wish to debate publicly with the Director-General constitutional disputes which we have with the Government nor do we wish to see the Public Service in any light other than a neutral light. The tasks of a department of State are to provide the administrative machinery necessary to give effect to Government policy, to ensure the proper running of the country, and even to supply advisory back-up to the Cabinet in formulating policies. A Government department is not a policy-making mechanism in itself and it is not proper to allow politically stated views to be presented as fact in reports of this nature. Apart from anything else, departments of State are supposed, in theory at least, not to favour any one party’s standpoint over that of another party. I believe that this report fails in this duty and I hope it will not happen again.

I think it was the hon. member for Roodepoort who yesterday accused the Opposition of trying to harness the entire English language Press into an anti-new constitution crusade. In this regard I should like to make a few points. Firstly, it is completely legitimate for a political party holding strong views on any issue, constitutional or otherwise, to try to persuade the media to give exposure to its point of view in order, by democratic means, to obtain a public majority in its favour. There is nothing wrong in that and in fact the NP has far greater access to a far more subservient Press than any of the Opposition parties. Secondly, the English language Press takes no orders from the PFP and neither does it take orders from any other party. The greatest value of the English language Press in our society is that it is independent of political manipulation, and its editors, even when they support the Opposition on issues, do so out of conviction. Thirdly, unlike the two main Government supporting newspaper groups, the English language groups have long been shut out of Government largesse. They do not rely for their profits on Government handouts or printing contracts and are not beholden to the authorities in any way. Perskor has found to its detriment in recent months that this sort of dubious privilege is a two-edged sword.

Talking of the media in terms of the constitution and talking of media campaigns, what are the instruments other than the Press that are available to the hon. the Minister and to the Government? Here I refer to the Information Service and to the SABC. Already both instruments, financed by the taxpayers, have been used shamelessly to propagate NP philosophy and, most recently, to promote attitudes on reform in general and on the new constitution in particular, both here and abroad. Opposition standpoints have so far been allowed little exposure in the department’s handouts while, on the constrary, the NP constitutional plan is set out in publication after publication, very often geared almost solely to the electorate. This is gross abuse of the use of public moneys.

Secondly, the SABC, under the close eye of the relevant Deputy Minister—who I am glad to see is in the House this afternoon—seems day by day to be swinging itself right into the machinery of State, acting as no more than a professional public relations officer for the proposed new constitution. It will be interesting to see, now that the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has ducked a debate with my hon. leader, whether the SABC will allow any political debate on this issue at all. I would like to warn that if the hon. the Minister and the Government continue to misuse the Information Service and the SABC to promote their constitutional policy, then that very aspect, as much as the constitution itself, will become an issue of raging public debate, and the charge that the Government is attempting to bulldoze its new constitution through with the indentured aid of the Information Service and the SABC will be a true one.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that the planning component of this Vote ought to receive a little more attention, and I am therefore not going to follow up any further on the hon. member for Sandton’s political arguments which sounded a discordant note. This afternoon I should like to make a few remarks about the Government’s plan for national physical development and then look, in particular, at the relevant philosophy and political principles which historically underlie NP policy. Then I also want to contrast this with the relevant philosophy and principles—if one can call them that—of the official Opposition and its predecessors. In a nut-shell, Mr. Chairman, the difference between the two is the difference between orientation on the one hand and a disorientated letting go the reins on the other hand, something to which the hon. member Dr. Odendaal has also referred. The NP’s approach is one of ordering matters, and its practical point of departure is the setting up of an aim or goal.

The official Opposition’s policy, on the other hand, is simply to give the normal economic forces free rein and to allow them to run their course unchecked. As far back as the advent of Union, the history of State policy and State control, as far as economic and physical planning are concerned, has consistently attested to that basic difference in approach, in policy and in Government action between the NP on the one hand and its political opponents on the other, regardless of whether those political opponents were in opposition or in power.

In the case of the NP Government’s, policy and control has consistently been characterized by purposeful planning, by the setting up of national objectives, proper ordering and clear orientation. There has always been clear planning and ordering. The policy and the action taken by NP Governments to date have been clearly systematic. This has run like a golden thread throughout the policy and administration of successive NP Governments since the advent of Union. That of the other Governments, in contrast, has consistently been characterized by a laissez-faire spirit or philosophy. As far back as the Hertzog era the difference in approach crystallized around the NP’s policy of South Africa first, in shrill contrast to that of the previous SAP Government’s attentiveness to the colonial mother-country, its slavish protection of vested interests and its view that the ordinary economic forces should be allowed to run their course unchecked. Even today that spirit is still prevalent in some circles, and also amongst certain elements of the official Opposition; those who, even now, want no truck with orientation and the setting up of objectives in physical planning and development. In 1967, during the Second Reading debate on the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Bill, the deep chasm between the philosophical approach of the NP Government and the then official Opposition was strikingly illustrated, and indeed by one of the erstwhile Opposition’s chief spokesmen who proclaimed the following flagrant standpoint. The member concerned was the erstwhile hon. member for Kensington, Mr. P. A. Moore, and the date was 29 May 1967. I quote as follows (Hansard, Vol. 21, col. 6905)—

What this amounts to is that initially the normal market mechanisms must be allowed to take their course. What it also means is that extensive capital must be accommodated, that vested interests must be protected, but even more than that, that extensive capital and vested interests must be subsidized, and that at State cost. With the taxpayer’s money the establishment of industries must be made attractive and, over and above that, the right incentives must be given at State cost. That was the official standpoint of the official Opposition 16 years ago. We must not, however, think that this is a thing of the past. Even today that very same spirit is still reflected in official Opposition circles, as was, in fact, illustrated less than 14 days ago in a speech by the hon. member for Walmer to which the hon. member Dr. Odendaal has also referred here. It was during the discussion of the Industries, Commerce and Tourism Vote that the hon. member for Walmer very sharply questioned the Government’s policy of regional development and decentralization, even rejecting and condemning it.

Let us, in contrast, note the present Government’s policy in this connection as formulated and revealed in official statements, decisions and actions taken in recent years. It will be noted that, throughout, emphasis is placed on purposefulness. With its accepted philosophy as the point of departure, specific objectives are pursued and specific aims are set. It is unavoidable, of course, that one would quite frequently come into conflict with the normal economic forces. In contrast to those non-national elements that only see economic and physical planning as the art of accommodating the normal market forces, the NP accepts the fact that those forces must sometimes be challenged and counteracted if, and in as much as, they would otherwise complicate or prevent the realization of our declared aims and objectives.

In 1947, when the old NRDC was established, the NP declared, by way of its spokesman, Dr. A. J. Stals, that the legislation embodied the principle of planned development, making available the necessary machinery for that purpose. Planned development, he said, offered benefits that could not be obtained by the random laissez-faire policy. When the NP drew up the national physical development plan, we also had this objective clearly in view, and it was formulated as follows—

Throughout the NP’s planning policy there is consequently that unmistakeable golden thread of orientation, gradually becoming stronger, more clearly defined and more systematic. This has now become even more significant. It has been given a new dimension with the recent unfolding of the decentralization and regional development proposals of the Government. The Government’s policy of directing economic development in accordance with its accepted principle in that regard has now been given dynamic substance in the division of the country into eight planning regions. On the occasion of a joint meeting of the executive committees of the regional development advisory committees, the hon. the Minister recently expressly indicated what was envisaged in terms of this plan. The hon. the Minister said the following—

As far back as 1967 the then Minister of Planning emphasized that in overall or national planning—

This consequently means decentralization, in general terms, or to put it more correctly, objectives for the combating of centralized development. That thread, as I have said, is visible throughout. If one goes back to 1947, when the first Natural Resources Development Act was placed on the Statute Book, one must remember that it could possible be said that the seed of the 1967 Act, the subsequent NPDP and its further development into the imaginative present-day regional development plan, was planted as far back as 1946 in the report of the erstwhile Social and Economic Planning Council. I want to quote the following from that report—

They then recommend the creation of a special new department of physical planning with the aim of, and I quote again—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, after several weeks of discussion in this and other debates, one had the experience of witnessing quite a bit of acrobatics in the handling of certain concepts, both on the part of the media and certain hon. members in this House, to such an extent, in fact, that one has had to fight against not becoming too frustrated. In an effort to refrain from doing so or not allowing myself to do so, I should like to link up with something that I think both the Government and we on this side of the House do still have in common. I should like to refer to a lecture given by Dr. H. Muller, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Government in London on 15 November 1962 at a meeting of the Royal African Society and the Royal Commonwealth Society. I heard yesterday that there are some of us who still adhere to 1914 policy, not to mention 1962 policy. I, however, still stand by the 1962 policy of the old NP. This is the statement Dr. Muller made at the time—

Then he went on to say—

I should very much like to underline the following—

This is a very realistic view, a very realistic résumé of the situation embodied in the new dispensation today. I want to express my opposition to that in civilized, reasonable, responsible language. I object to it because I belive in the NP’s standpoint when the then Minister of Foreign Affairs put this matter to the world at large. It was responsibly stated; that was our standpoint.

By way of the new dispensation we have, firstly, initiated a process, or we are going to initiate a process, of conciliation, the old Louis Botha recipe: “Make friends with them and tame them; if you cannot beat them, join them; adapt or die” instead of “secure, protect and live”, which is our standpoint. This policy of conciliation, this injection of conciliation, Smith also tried to implement in the former Rhodesia—he brought two into his Cabinet—but it did not work, because of the composition of the population, the racial composition. One cannot create any efficient Government with more than one party, one race and one people in that Government, unless one wants to emasculate oneself and create coalition Governments. That is out. It is unrealistic and short-sighted politics and is an irresponsible attitude to adopt towards future generations. One does not have to be a genius to see that, because surely that is what history has taught us. We can all make errors of judgment. I myself have made many. I had to forfeit my health and so on because I made errors of judgment. But I have, in truth, always tried not to ignore the lessons of history. I have tried to learn from history and from my environment. Thereby I have tried to eliminate or avoid further problems in my life. It seems to me, however, that there are people who are not capable of learning from history not to electrify certain stratas of life by stirring up racial feelings—Dr. Hilgard Muller said it here—and creating areas of friction that could lead to worse revolution than we have ever known, and then to come along and talk of a total onslaught from outside. The question is to what extent we, the people who govern, lend ourselves to the preparation of such an onslaught, not from without, but from within, in the political sphere, in the media sphere and in the church sphere. We are not pursuing vertical lines or a pyramidal form of State life or such a form of life for the various peoples; what we are wanting to do is horizontalize everything, draw horizontal lines, make things equal and share, turn people into numbers. We want to turn the Coloureds, Asians and Whites, and later the Blacks too, into numbers.

Now you are talking nonsense.

I know the hon. the Minister does not like that. He is scared of logic; he is scared of the logical consequences of his own standpoint. What I am saying is that what we want to do is turn people into numbers. Mention was made of concepts involving peoples and of an Afrikaner super-State, but in my blue-print it has always been stated that I belong to the Afrikaner people, and I make no excuse for that fact. I am not, however, a racist. My personal philosophy, and the standpoint of my party, is that Afrikanerhood is not only an hereditary right, a language question, a question of origins or a question of religious views. South Africanism must be won by loyalty to the idiomatic and traditional aspects of one’s own existence as a people and love for one’s fatherland. That is where Afrikanerhood lies. I have also known betrayal in the life of my people, and I am very heart-sore about that. My people do not constitute a super-race. Let me say that the Frenchman, the German and the Hollander who wishes to do so, can compete with me for Afrikanerhood. Where does Emily Hobhouse lie buried? How were the Slegtkamps not honoured in our history? They were not born Afrikaners, but people who won their Afrikanerhood through loyalty to the traditional and idiomatic aspects of this country and its people. We are not racists. Ours is not a super-people. All Whites are welcome; what we are saying is that we want to eliminate racial friction by establishing here the pyramidal form of society, with separate people in separate States alongside each other and functioning on parallel lines, as all our representatives have, until recently, stated throughout the world and also in this country. Let me say that the process of conciliation will, in due course, lead to accommodation. After one has done the taming, after one has extended the invitation, one must grant ministerial posts, schools and residential areas, and then one would have to look at the Group Areas Act and other such Acts. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Witwatersberg …

North Rand.

Yes, I beg your pardon. The hon. member for North Rand has been absent for such a long time and has also, for such a long time, been behaving himself so well, that one forgets what constituency he represents.

His photograph also makes him look so young that one cannot recognize him.

Yes, one cannot always recognize someone from a photograph either. [Interjections.] Although we are concerned here with politics, with emotional matters, I want to give him credit—photograph or no photograph—for the fact that he still comes across very well.

I briefly want to refer to the hon. member’s speech. He went back to 1962. That is typical of those hon. members. They always fix their gaze on the past. If we were ever to erect a statue to one of the members of the CP, it would not be one like that of Cecil John Rhodes gazing ahead of him towards the north, but rather one of somebody looking over his shoulder. The hon. member quoted what Dr. Hilgard Muller had said in 1962. He only reacts to it twenty years later. The hon. member spoke of the total onslaught and of other things his party rejected. It is unnecessary for me to elaborate on that, because I think the community as a whole is a better judge of that. The CP wants to imply that everything is plain sailing for us in this country and that there are no questions or problems that we are faced with. All one has to do, according to them, is to establish a Coloured homeland and then all one’s problems will vanish into thin air. The hon. member made a great fuss about loyalty, but when that hon. member’s co-operation, and that of his colleagues, was needed in difficult times, they did not display any loyalty. Then they walked out. That hon. member must not talk about loyalty. I am sorry, but it makes no impression. People with such a history cannot speak about loyalty.

The CP persists in talking about a Coloured homeland. Let us, however, be practical. [Interjections.] The members of the CP are now scared stiff of hearing what I am going to say and that is why they are making so much noise. [Interjections.] Hans, surely you have already had a chance to speak; now give me a chance too.

It is not I; it is your Minister.

The CP alleges that as far as they are concerned everything is so ship-shape, yet why have they not shown us, on a map, where their Coloured homeland is going to be situated? They first had it dotted all over the place and then said it would be along the West Coast. Thereafter we heard the story about the Boland. Why not be practical and show us exactly where that homeland is going to be?

Where is your final consolidation plan after 20 years?

Show us exactly where that homeland is going to be. The advantage of an Opposition party that cannot come into power, is that it can present the people with a theoretical policy, without its practicality ever having to be tested. Those are favourable circumstances for the policy of those hon. members’ party. They owe it to the voters to spell out clearly what they want to do. I think I have now devoted enough time to that hon. member.

I should like to say a few words about planning. I do so with apologies to the hon. member for Yeoville, because he intimated this afternoon that it would not be right to talk about planning at the moment because we are now only busy with constitutional development. This Department also deals with planning. I therefore cannot understand the hon. member’s approach. The planning structures are such that this important aspect of the country’s administration very definitely does come into its own. The policy of decentralization is one of the very important factors in our whole approach to planning. I know that the PFP is very sensitive about this matter. They are concerned about the metropoles. This is so, firstly, because they draw their life-blood from the social problems that develop in conditions of over-concentration. Secondly, they and their friends are great property-holders and are consequently very sensitive about any economic relapse taking place, because this would personally affect them and their friends. Balanced development is essential to any country’s future.

I want to refer to the guideline committees that are doing good work in the provinces. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is unfortunate that I had to stand up to speak in the dying minutes of this debate. It was not, however, my choice to do so. I am told when to speak. If hon. members of the CP are tired of the debate, I shall excuse them. They must just not make so much noise. [Interjections.]

Those guideline committees are doing good work. They are helping the towns; making the people planning-conscious and also giving the various interest groups an opportunity to make contributions. These plans will not, however, have any statutory authority. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department to consider drawing up a guideplan for the goldfields region. It is important, even at this stage, for proper planning to be done for that rapidly developing area. It is important, and I would therefore be glad if the hon. the Minister and his Department could react to that. I think it is specifically necessary, at this early stage of development, to lay down certain guidelines that could also be given statutory effect.

There are developments in the mining field over which no proper control is being exercised. Hostels and Black townships are coming into being and it is therefore necessary for guideplans to be drawn up for that region too. I would therefore be very glad if attention could be given to that.

In conclusion I just want to say that we are grateful for the planning being done by this Department and all the other sectors involved. I also want to ask for proper planning in all Government Departments, with a view to the envisaged development over, say, the following five or ten years. We find, for example, that when Escom decides to build a power-station, the infrastructure—for example, roads and other facilities that are involved—is not available when the development commences. I think that it is this Department that is in a position to do forward planning on a co-ordinated basis so that relevant bodies can know what is envisaged for the period ahead.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.